Leach v. OASAS et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 18 Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth above, Defendant City of New York's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against the City of New York are dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this motion. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/17/2013) (tro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------------)(

USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FiiiD[:APR 1 7 2013

MONTE S. LEACH,
Plaintiff,
12 Civ. 2141 (AJN)
-v-

ORDER
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and SAMARITAN
VILLAGE-V AN WYCK,
Defendants.

----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Monte Leach, appearing pro se, brings this action, alleging that while he was a
resident at the Samaritan Village-Van Wyck Treatment Center ("Samaritan Village"), in
Jamaica, New York, he was subjected to sexually harassing comments and behavior by Harry
Scott and Carlos Castro, two staff members of Samaritan Village. Defendant City of New York
now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint because, inter alia, it fails to state a claim for
municipal liability. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.

BACKGROUND

In March 2011, a Brooklyn Treatment Court ordered Plaintiff to attend a residential
substance abuse program at Samaritan Village. (Am. Compl. at 2, 7) According to the

1 The following facts are drawn from Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No.9), and, for the
purpose of addressing this motion, are assumed to be true. See Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen,
Inc., 496 F.3d 229,237 (2d Cir. 2007).

1

complaint, on at least eleven occasions from April 1, 2011, through his discharge on May 27,
2011, two employees of Samaritan Village -- Harry Scott, the Assistant Director, and Carlos
Castro, a counselor -- acting in "cahoots" with two residents, subjected Plaintiff to harassment in
the form of sexually suggestive comments, lewd remarks, and unwanted touching, on at least
eleven occasions. (Am. CompI. at 7) As a result of this harassment, Plaintiff alleges that he
suffered depression, anxiety, distress, hypertension, post-traumatic stress disorder, and physical
ailments. (Am. CompI. at 7, ~ III)

Procedural History
On March 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court naming as Defendants the
New York State Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Services ("OASAS"); Samaritan
Village; Harry Scott, Assistant Director of Samaritan Village; and Carlos "Doe," Counselor of
Samaritan Village. (Dkt. No.2) On April 10, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims
against OASAS, on sovereign immunity grounds, and directed Plaintiff to serve Defendants
Samaritan Village and Harry Scott and to file an amended complaint once he had ascertained the
identity of Carlos Doe. (Dkt. No.6)
On May 11,2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, (Dkt. No.9), naming as
Defendants the State of New York, the City of New York, OASAS, and Samaritan Village. In
his amended complaint, Plaintiff did not name Harry Scott or Carlos Doe, now identified as
Carlos Castro, as Defendants. On May 24,2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against
OASAS and the State of New York, on sovereign immunity grounds, directed service on
Defendants Samaritan Village and the City of New York, and permitted Plaintiff to file a second

2

amended complaint should he wish to pursue his claims against Defendants Harry Scott and
Carlos Castro. (Dkt. No.1 0) Because Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint, the
only remaining Defendants in this matter are the City of New York and Samaritan Village.
On October 22,2012, the City of New York filed this motion to dismiss? (Dkt. Nos. 18,
19.) Plaintiff having failed to respond, on February 1,2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit
his opposition by February 18,2013, and noted that failure to do so would be viewed as a waiver
of his right to oppose. (Dkt. No. 24) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response.
DISCUSSION
Legal Standard

Defendant City of N ew York argues, inter alia, that Plaintiff s claim should be dismissed
under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim against the City, because he does not allege facts
necessary to show municipal liability. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Because the Court agrees with
this argument, it does not address Defendant's alternate bases for dismissal.
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009) (quoting Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007». "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Id. In determining whether to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, a court must

2 Defendant Samaritan Village, which does not join Defendant City of New York's Motion to
Dismiss, filed a timely answer to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint on November 6, 2012. (Dkt.
No. 23)

3

"construe plaintiffs' complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true,
and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor." Selevan v. NY Thruway Auth., 584
F.3d 82, 88 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Carver v. City a/NY, 621 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2010).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the COUli "construe[ s] his complaint liberally and
interpret[s] it 'to raise the strongest arguments that [it] suggest[s]." Chavis v. Chapp ius, 618
F.3d 162,170 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Harris v. City o/N Y, 607 F.3d 18,24 (2d Cir. 2010))
(alteration in original). However, "that tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions, and threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice." Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
Plaintiffs failure to oppose Defendant's motion to dismiss does not, by itself, require dismissal
of his claims. See McCall v. Pataki, 232 F.3d 321,322 (2d Cir. 2000); Maggette v. Dalsheim,
709 F.2d 800, 802 (2d Cir. 1983). "[A]lthough a party is of course to be given a reasonable
opportunity to respond to an opponent's motion, the sufficiency of a complaint is a matter of law
that the court is capable of determining based on its own reading of the pleading and knowledge
of the law." McCall, 232 F.3d at 322-23.
Municipal Liability

The City argues that, even assuming all facts to be true and drawing all reasonable
inferences in his favor, Plaintiffs complaint does not sufficiently allege facts that would
establish municipal liability. (Defs. Br. at 5-6.) "[T]o hold a city liable under § 1983 for the
unconstitutional actions of its employees, a plaintiff is required to plead and prove three
elements: (1) an official policy or custom that (2) causes the plaintiff to be subjected to (3) a

4

denial of a constitutional right." Wray v. City of N. Y, 490 F.3d 189, 195 (2d Cir. 2007)
(quotation marks omitted; alteration in original). Plaintiffs Amended Complaint contains no
facts regarding an official policy or custom of the City, let alone a policy or custom that he was
sUbjected to and that resulted in his being denied a constitutional right. Indeed, Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint contains no facts, whatsoever, regarding the City, its agents, or its
employees. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim of municipal liability and his complaint
against Defendant City of New York must be dismissed. See Monell v. Dep 't of Soc. Servs. of
the City ofN. Y, 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978); Anthony v. City ofN. Y, 339 F.3d 129, 139 (2d

Cir. 2003).
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant City of New York's motion to dismiss is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs claims against the City of New York are dismissed. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to terminate this motion.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: April
\
, 2013
New York, New York
United States District Judge

5