LoCurto v. NYU Langone Lutheran Hospital
1:23-cv-00386
| E.D.N.Y | Aug 12, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Stephen LoCurto, an inmate at MDC Brooklyn, filed pro se lawsuits against NYU Langone Lutheran Hospital and various federal defendants, claiming poisoning and attempts on his life while incarcerated.
- LoCurto alleges his food was poisoned by a federal officer, medical attention was delayed, and conspiracies to harm him were executed at NYU Langone in conjunction with BOP staff.
- After being hospitalized and undergoing surgery at NYU Langone, LoCurto claims attempts were made on his life, including intentional medical harm, and suggests the hospital conspired to kill him for organ harvesting.
- LoCurto brings claims under criminal statutes (18 U.S.C. § 1959), civil RICO, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens, and state law torts (medical malpractice, assault, battery).
- NYU Langone moved to dismiss all claims, arguing lack of a private right of action, failure to state a claim, and lack of state/federal actor status.
- The magistrate judge recommends granting NYU Langone's motion in full, dismissing all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1959 | LoCurto can sue under federal murder statute | No private right to bring federal criminal charge | No private right exists; claim dismissed |
| Civil RICO claim | Says RICO claim for assault/murder is valid | Must allege economic (not personal) injury | No economic injury pled; claim dismissed |
| State/federal actor (§ 1983/Bivens) | NYU Langone acted under color of law via state funding/BOP ties | NYU is not a state or federal actor | Not a state/federal actor; claim dismissed |
| State law claims (malpractice, assault, battery) | Tort liability for actions of NYU Langone staff | Dismissal of fed. claims negates jurisdiction | Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (describes plausibility standard required to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requires factual allegations to raise the right to relief above speculative level)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints must be construed more liberally than those drafted by lawyers)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (Bivens remedies unavailable against private entities acting under color of federal law)
- Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (2012) (Bivens claims not available against private employees for acts related to incarceration)