Opinion
07-CV-00866 (ENV) (LB).
March 20, 2007
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Christian Sockwell, currently detained at Creedmore Psychiatric Hospital, brings this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens, alleging, inter alia, that workers at Holliswood Hospital in Queens County used excessive force. The case was initially filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 3, 2006 and transferred to this Court by order dated December 26, 2006. The Court grants plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is dismissed.
This Court, however, did not receive the transfer order and plaintiff's submission until February 26, 2007.
Background
Plaintiff alleges that on May 30, 2006, he was "taken [by police to] Holliswood Hospital where he was assigned [to] Ward 2 South." See Plaintiff's "Evidentiary Allegations in Support of Claim" at ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff further alleges that on July 6, 2006, while walking the halls of Ward 2 South, he was "attacked by 20 staff members who grabbed petitioner placed their knees in his back and pulled his head placed plaintiff in restraints for 4 hrs. Plaintiff was given 2 doses of sedative. Plaintiff was denied food and water after incident." Id. at ¶¶ 3, 6. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained injuries to his knees, neck, back, face, chest area, including "bruises, cuts, abrasions to knees, legs, swellings." Complaint at 3, ¶ III.
Standard of Review
In reviewing the complaint, the Court is mindful that plaintiff is proceeding pro se and that his pleadings should be held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004). However, pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute, the Court shall dismiss a complaint "at any time" if it determines that the action is (i) frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous as a matter of law when, inter alia, it is based on an "indisputably meritless legal theory" — that is, when it "lacks an arguable basis in law . . ., or [when] a dispositive defense clearly exists on the face of the complaint." Livingston v. Adirondack Bev. Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998).
In order to maintain an action under § 1983 or Bivens, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements. First, that "the conduct complained of must have been committed by aperson acting under color of state law." Pitchell v. Callan, 13 F.3d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1994). If the defendants are acting under color of federal law, such claims are properly brought pursuant to principles set forth in Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Second, that "the conduct complained of must have deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Pitchell, 13 F.3d at 547.
Discussion A. No State Action as to Holliswood Hospital Defendants
The crux of plaintiff's complaint is that Holliswood Hospital employees used excessive force against him on July 6, 2006. He also alleges that he was given two doses of a sedative and denied food and water after the incident. Plaintiff also states that Holliswood Hospital is a private hospital, see Complaint at 3, ¶ IV; see also www.libertymgt.com/facilities/holliswood.htm (describing Holliswood Hospital as a "private psychiatric hospital"). Because Holliswood Hospital is a private facility, it is not acting under color of state or federal law, and therefore cannot be sued under § 1983 or Bivens. The "state action" requirement excludes from the reach of § 1983 private conduct, "however discriminatory or wrongful." American Manufacturers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999) (quotation omitted). Therefore, the claims against Holliswood Hospital and its employees are hereby dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff does not specifically allege that he was forced to take the sedatives and he does not allege for how long he was denied food and water.
B. No Personal Involvement of Mental Health Commissioner
Conclusion
Pennhurst State Sch. Hosp. v. Halderman 465 U.S. 89100Davis v. New York316 F.3d 93101 in forma pauperis 28 U.S.C. § 1915Foman v. Davis371 U.S. 178182O'Hara v. Weeks Marine, Inc.294 F.3d 556928 U.S.C. 1915in forma pauperis Coppedge v. United States369 U.S. 438444-45