Middleton v. Lantz et al

Filing 5

ORDER TO AMEND: Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the date of this order, c aption the document as an "Amended Complaint," and label the document with docket number 24-CV-8216 (LTS). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the tim e allowed, and she cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff may consent to accept service of documents in this case by email, instead of regular mail, by completing the attached form, Consent to Electronic Service. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied f or the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/6/2025) (tg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NATALIA DANIELLE MIDDLETON,
Plaintiff,
-against-

24-CV-8216 (LTS)

LINCOLN MEDICAL CENTER; MELINDA
LANTZ; MATTHEW CHIANG; CEZARY
CZEKIERDEWSKI,

ORDER TO AMEND

Defendants.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the Court’s federal question
jurisdiction. She asserts claims for violations of her constitutional rights during her detention on
May 1, 2024, and during her involuntary civil commitment, as well as claims for violations of
state law. By order dated November 8, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in
forma pauperis, that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint,
that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);
see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if
the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to
construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret
them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470

F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in
original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits –
to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.
The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to
state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the
court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing
the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court
must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is
entitled to relief. Id.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are drawn from the complaint. 1 On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff had a
dispute with her mother. (ECF 1 at 5.) At some point, police officers from the 41st Precinct
arrived and were outside the home. Plaintiff, who had not been told that she was required to stay,
attempted to return to the house with her one-year-old child. At that point, a “group of officer[s]
use[d] excessive force.” (Id. at 5.) She was handcuffed but not read any rights or informed of the

1

The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation
are as in the original unless noted otherwise.
2

grounds of her detention. Plaintiff has a separate suit against Police Officer Infante alleging
excessive force arising out of this incident. 2
Plaintiff was placed in an emergency medical services vehicle and transported to Lincoln
Medical Center. (Id. at 6.) She contends that N.Y. Mental Health Law § 9.27 “was violated.” (Id.)
At Lincoln Medical Center, she did not receive “a timely and comprehensive evaluation” from
qualified psychiatric professionals to determine whether she met involuntary admission criteria.
“No documented evidence was produced to show that [Plaintiff] had a serious medical disorder
or posed a threat” to herself or others. (Id.)
On May 2, 2024, Plaintiff “was placed into [a] psychiatric facility” and “on site staff”
administered antipsychotic medication to her. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff continued to assert that she did
not “have a mental illness,” but her request for further evaluation was ignored. She was deemed
“noncompliant” and forcibly given a sedative; Plaintiff was also told that she could not leave
unless she took the medication. (Id. at 7.) She asserts that the staff used “excessive force” and
engaged in “improper administration of antipsychotic medication affecting daily behavior and
mood.” (Id.)
Plaintiff was held “beyond the initial 72-hour evaluation” period, allegedly in violation of
her right to due process and rights under the N.Y. Mental Health Law. She was released on May
14, 2024.
Plaintiff brings suit against Lincoln Medical Center, Dr. Melinda Lantz, Dr.
Czekierdowski, and Physician’s Assistant Matthew Chiang. She seeks (1) damages for the
alleged violation of her constitutional rights, (2) to enjoin Lincoln Medical Center from
continuing to violate her rights, and (3) to remove the “misdiagnosis” from her medical records.

2

See Middleton v. Infante, No. 24-CV-8217 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.).
3

DISCUSSION
A.

Claims against Defendants Lantz, Czekierdowski, and P.A. Chiang
Plaintiff contends that, in violation of her constitutional rights, she was involuntarily

civilly committed and administered antipsychotic medication. To state a claim against an
individual for a violation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege
facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional
deprivation. See Spavone v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Serv., 719 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2013) (“It
is well settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in the alleged constitutional
deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Plaintiff’s complaint does not include any factual allegations about what any of the
individual defendants personally did or failed to do that violated her rights. Defendants are not
mentioned in the complaint other than in the caption. Because Plaintiff’s allegations are
insufficient to show how these defendants were personally involved in the events underlying her
claims, the Court dismisses the allegations for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to replead her claims, and the Court therefore
notes the standards applicable to her claim. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff
must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state
actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988).
Involuntary civil commitment is a “massive curtailment of liberty” that “cannot
permissibly be accomplished without due process of law.” Rodriguez v. City of New York, 72 F.3d
1051, 1061 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Generally, the Fourteenth Amendment “prohibits
4

states from involuntarily committing non-dangerous mentally ill individuals,” Bolmer v.
Oliveira, 594 F.3d 134, 142 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 575-76
(1975)), unless an individual cannot “sustain [himself] in the community,” Project Release v.
Provost, 722 F.2d 960, 972 (2d Cir. 1983). Nevertheless, “medical professionals may be held
liable for substantive due process violations only when their medical decisions represent such a
substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards that it
demonstrates that they did not base their decision on such a judgment.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457
U.S. 307, 323 (1982).
Here, Plaintiff challenges the timeliness and the comprehensiveness of her psychiatric
evaluation. (ECF 1 at 6.) She also contends that she was detained without “documented
evidence” that she “had a serious mental disorder or posed a threat.” (Id.) Even if the Court were
to assume that these individual defendants were all involved and were responsible for the
conduct alleged, Plaintiff’s allegations that the medical evaluation was not “comprehensive” or
was not founded on written documents establishing mental illness, are insufficient to plead that
the medical decision was a “substantial departure from accepted professional judgment.”
Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323.
If Plaintiff chooses to amend her complaint and replead these claims, she must allege
facts showing what each defendant personally did that violated her rights and any facts showing
that the involuntary commitment decision was not based on acceptable professional judgment.
B.

Claims against Lincoln Medical Center
Plaintiff also sues Lincoln Medical Center, which is a facility operated by New York City

Health + Hospitals (H+H). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an entity’s capacity to be
sued is generally determined by the law of the state where the federal court is located. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 17(b)(3). New York law provides that agencies of the City of New York cannot be sued
5

in the name of the agency, unless state law provides otherwise. N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396
(“[A]ll actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be
brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where
otherwise provided by law.”).
Under New York law, H+H has the capacity to be sued. See N.Y. Unconsol. Laws
§ 7385(1). State law, however, does not grant facilities operated by H+H the capacity to be sued.
Ochei v. Coler/Goldwater Mem’l Hosp., 450 F. Supp. 2d 275, 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“[A] facility
owned and operated by [H+H] . . . may not be sued in its independent capacity”); Ayala v.
Bellevue Hosp., No. 94-CV-1551 (WHP), 1999 WL 637235, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 1999)
(“[S]ince Bellevue is merely a facility within [H+H], it too lacks the capacity to be sued.”). As a
facility operated by H+H, Lincoln Medical Center lacks the capacity to be sued, and Plaintiff’s
claims against Lincoln Medical Center must therefore be dismissed.
Because the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, the Court notes that, if
Plaintiff chooses to replead her Section 1983 claim against H+H (instead of Lincoln Medical
Center), it is not enough for the plaintiff to allege that H+H’s employees or agents engaged in
some wrongdoing. Instead, the plaintiff must show that H+H itself caused the violation of her
rights. Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011). In other words, to state a claim against
H+H under Section 1983, the plaintiff must allege facts showing (1) the existence of an H+H
policy, custom, or practice, and (2) that the policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of the
plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Jones v. Town of East Haven, 691 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012); see
Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997) (internal citations
omitted); Rookard v. Health & Hosp. Corp., 710 F.2d 41, 45 (2d Cir. 1983) (applying the
standard for Section 1983 municipal liability to H+H). Here, even if the Court were to construe

6

Plaintiff’s claims as having been brought against H+H, Plaintiff does not allege any facts
suggesting that a policy, custom, or practice of H+H caused a violation of her federal
constitutional rights.
LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts
generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its
defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir.
2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has
cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to
amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid
claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v.
USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Because Plaintiff may be able to allege
additional facts to state a valid claim, the Court grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to amend her
complaint to detail her claims.
First, Plaintiff must name as the defendant(s) in the caption and the statement of claim
those individuals who were allegedly involved in the deprivation of her federal rights. If Plaintiff
does not know the name of a defendant, she may refer to that individual as “John Doe” or “Jane
Doe” in both the caption and the body of the amended complaint. 3 The naming of John Doe
defendants, however, does not toll the three-year statute of limitations period governing this
action and Plaintiff is responsible for ascertaining the true identity of any “John Doe” defendants

3

For example, a defendant may be identified as: “Nurse John Doe #1 on duty August 31,
2024, at Sullivan Correctional Facility, during the 7-3 p.m. shift.”
7

and amending her complaint to include the identity of any “John Doe” defendants before the
statute of limitations period expires.
In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must
provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each
defendant. If Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, Plaintiff must provide it. Plaintiff
should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to
consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information
should include:
a) the names and titles of all relevant people;
b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do,
the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where each
event occurred;
c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and
d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory
relief.
Essentially, Plaintiff’s amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated her
federally protected rights; how, when, and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is
entitled to relief.
Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the
original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wants to include from the original complaint
must be repeated in the amended complaint.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards
set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit
within 60 days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and

8

label the document with docket number 24-CV-8216 (LTS). An Amended Complaint form is
attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the
time allowed, and she cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff may consent to accept service of documents in this case by email, instead of
regular mail, by completing the attached form, Consent to Electronic Service.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant
demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 6, 2025
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge

9

U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT
S OUTHERN D ISTRICT OF N EW Y ORK

_____CV_______________
(Include case number if one has been
assigned)

Write the full name of each plaintiff.

AMENDED

-against-

COMPLAINT
Do you want a jury trial?
? ??Yes ? ??No

Write the full name of each defendant. If you need more
space, please write “see attached” in the space above and
attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of
names. The names listed above must be identical to those
contained in Section II.

NOTICE
The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed
with the court should therefore not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full
birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account
number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of
an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number.
See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.

Rev. 2/10/17

I.

BASIS FOR JURISDICTION

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (limited power). Generally, only two types of
cases can be heard in federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving
diversity of citizenship of the parties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case arising under the United
States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
a case in which a citizen of one State sues a citizen of another State or nation, and the amount
in controversy is more than $75,000, is a diversity case. In a diversity case, no defendant may
be a citizen of the same State as any plaintiff.
What is the basis for federal-court jurisdiction in your case?
? ??Federal Question
? ??Diversity of Citizenship
A. If you checked Federal Question
Which of your federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated?

B. If you checked Diversity of Citizenship
1. Citizenship of the parties
Of what State is each party a citizen?
The plaintiff ,

, is a citizen of the State of
(Plaintiff’s name)

(State in which the person resides and intends to remain.)
or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or
subject of the foreign state of
.
If more than one plaintiff is named in the complaint, attach additional pages providing
information for each additional plaintiff.

Page 2

If the defendant is an individual:
The defendant,

, is a citizen of the State of
(Defendant’s name)

or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or
subject of the foreign state of
.

If the defendant is a corporation:
The defendant,

, is incorporated under the laws of

the State of
and has its principal place of business in the State of
or is incorporated under the laws of (foreign state)
and has its principal place of business in

.

If more than one defendant is named in the complaint, attach additional pages providing
information for each additional defendant.

II. PARTIES
A. Plaintiff Information
Provide the following information for each plaintiff named in the complaint. Attach additional
pages if needed.

First Name

Middle Initial

Last Name

Street Address

County, City

State

Telephone Number

Email Address (if available)

Zip Code

Page 3

B. Defendant Information
To the best of your ability, provide addresses where each defendant may be served. If the
correct information is not provided, it could delay or prevent service of the complaint on the
defendant. Make sure that the defendants listed below are the same as those listed in the
caption. Attach additional pages if needed.
Defendant 1:

First Name

Last Name

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City

State

First Name

Last Name

Zip Code

Defendant 2:

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City

State

First Name

Last Name

Zip Code

Defendant 3:

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City

State

Zip Code

Page 4

Defendant 4:
First Name

Last Name

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City

State

Zip Code

III. STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Place(s) of occurrence:

Date(s) of occurrence:

FACTS:

State here briefly the FACTS that support your case. Describe what happened, how you were
harmed, and what each defendant personally did or failed to do that harmed you. Attach
additional pages if needed.

Page 5

INJURIES:

If you were injured as a result of these actions, describe your injuries and what medical
treatment, if any, you required and received.

IV. RELIEF
State briefly what money damages or other relief you want the court to order.

Page 6

V. PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFICATION AND WARNINGS
By signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that: (1) the
complaint is not being presented for an improper purpose (such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); (2) the claims are supported
by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument to change existing law; (3) the factual
contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;
and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11.
I agree to notify the Clerk's Office in writing of any changes to my mailing address. I
understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may
result in the dismissal of my case.
Each Plaintiff must sign and date the complaint. Attach additional pages if necessary. If seeking to
proceed without prepayment of fees, each plaintiff must also submit an IFP application.

Dated

Plaintiff’s Signature

First Name

Middle Initial

Last Name

Street Address
County, City
Telephone Number

State

Zip Code
Email Address (if available)

I have read the Pro Se (Nonprisoner) Consent to Receive Documents Electronically:
? ??Yes

? ??No

If you do consent to receive documents electronically, submit the completed form with your
complaint. If you do not consent, please do not attach the form.

Page 7