748 F. App'x 379
2d Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Richard Hardy, pro se, sued NYPD officers Patrick Daly and Jorge Grullon under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York state law for alleged sexual assault of Hardy's wife, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and failure to intervene.
- District court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and for procedural defects on state-law claims (failure to serve a timely notice of claim).
- Hardy appealed the dismissal of his federal civil-rights claims and the state-law tort dismissals.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, construing Hardy's pro se allegations liberally.
- The panel affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 claims (standing, verbal threats, and failure-to-intervene) but vacated the dismissal of state-law tort claims based on notice-of-claim issues and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to raise claims based on alleged sexual assault of Hardy's wife | Hardy asserted claims based on the alleged sexual assault of his wife and related harms | Defendants argued Hardy lacked standing to bring claims about harms to his wife | Court: Hardy lacks standing to pursue claims arising directly from his wife's alleged sexual assault; federal claims dismissed |
| Verbal threats by officer Daly as § 1983 violation | Hardy alleged Daly verbally threatened him | Defendants argued verbal harassment without injury does not state § 1983 claim | Court: Verbal threats alone, absent appreciable injury, do not state a constitutional claim; claim dismissed |
| Failure-to-intervene claim against Grullon | Hardy alleged Grullon failed to intervene during alleged misconduct | Defendants argued no underlying constitutional violation occurred, so no duty to intervene | Court: Failure-to-intervene claim fails because there was no underlying constitutional violation; claim dismissed |
| Timeliness/notice of claim for state-law torts against officers | Hardy argued his state tort claims should proceed despite notice timing | Defendants argued Hardy failed to serve a timely notice of claim, barring state-law claims | Court: District court erred by not addressing N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-k(3); because alleged conduct was beyond the scope of employment and would constitute intentional wrongdoing, municipal indemnification would not apply, so notice-of-claim requirement did not procedurally bar the state-law tort claims; dismissal vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and reasonable inference guide)
- Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424 (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6))
- Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116 (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263 (verbal harassment without appreciable injury does not state a § 1983 claim)
- Hardy v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosp. Corp., 164 F.3d 789 (application of state notice-of-claim rules in federal court)