Moussa v. Sullivan
1:22-cv-03709
| E.D.N.Y | Jul 22, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Momen Moussa filed a § 1983 action challenging New York’s Mental Hygiene Law and seeking removal of his mental-health information from state and federal databases; IFP status granted for purposes of the order.
- Moussa alleges repeated family conflicts with his father beginning in 2006, multiple 911 calls by his father, and several involuntary psychiatric admissions (including after a January 2018 incident).
- He contends physicians rely on family reports to designate “dangerousness” without a probable-cause hearing or opportunity to confront accusers, causing loss of job opportunities and gun-rights consequences.
- Moussa seeks an injunction against Article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law and expungement/removal of his name and mental-health history from databases including NICS.
- The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim but granted Moussa 30 days leave to file an amended complaint; appeal IFP status certified as not in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial due-process challenge to NY Mental Hygiene Law (Article 9 / §9.39) | Moussa: law permits doctors to commit based on family reports without a prior probable-cause hearing or confrontation, violating due process | Sullivan: New York’s statutory scheme provides required procedural protections (notice, independent exams, prompt state-court hearing) | Dismissed — facial challenge rejected; Court relied on binding Second Circuit precedent that the MHL is facially sufficient |
| Request to remove name/records from federal/state databases (e.g., NICS) | Moussa: removal required because commitments and records harmed rights and employment | Sullivan: statutory and administrative processes exist in NY (e.g., certificate of relief / Article 78); plaintiff did not show a federal right violated | Denied — no federal remedy pleaded; state procedures control removal and plaintiff has not shown exhaustion or any federal claim |
| Challenge to accuracy / disclosure of medical records (HIPAA and MHL §33.16) | Moussa: medical records and diagnoses are inaccurate and were used improperly against him | Sullivan: HIPAA provides no private right of action; NY MHL §33.16 provides state procedures to review/challenge records | Dismissed — HIPAA not privately enforceable; state statute provides the remedy and federal court cannot grant relief on pure state-law claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of plausibility pleading standard)
- Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2011) (plausibility and inference standards in pleader-friendly context)
- Project Release v. Prevost, 722 F.2d 960 (2d Cir. 1983) (analysis of due-process sufficiency in involuntary-commitment statutes)
- Rodriguez v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1051 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding New York’s involuntary-commitment scheme facially sufficient)
- Anemone v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 629 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2011) (Article 78 provides adequate post-deprivation process)
- Meadows v. United Servs., Inc., 963 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 2020) (no private right of action under HIPAA)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for good-faith appeals in forma pauperis)