United States District Court, E.D. New York
For the Plaintiff: Robert James Malone, Esq., Of Counsel, Law Office of Ray Malone, PLLC, Miller Place, NY.
For the Plaintiff: William M. Brooks, Esq., Of Counsel, Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, Civil Rights Clinic, Central Islip, NY.
For the Defendants Kristin Steele, personally; Thomas Vertrees, M.D., personally, David Marguiles, M.D., personally; Brenda Garro, M.D., personally; and Stony Brook University Medical Center: Ralph Pernick, Assistant Attorney General, New York State Attorney General's Office, Mineola, NY.
For the Defendant Theddeus Ihennacho, M.D., personally and Abid Iqbal Khan, M.D., personally: Brian E. Lee, Esq., Of Counsel, Ivone, Devine & Jensen, Lake Success, NY.
For the Defendant Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc.: Greg M. Mondelli, Esq., Of Counsel, Lewis, Johs, Avallone, Aviles, Melville, NY.
For the Defendant Lloyd Sooku, M.D.: James M. Skelly, Esq., Robert E. Fein, Esq., Of Counsel, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Elmsford, NY.
DECISION AND ORDER
ARTHUR D. SPATT, United States District Judge.
Familiarity with the prior factual and procedural history of this case is presumed.
However, by way of background, this civil rights and medical malpractice action arises out of the involuntary hospitalization of the Plaintiff (" Patrick Bryant" ) by the Defendants Stony Brook University Medical Center (" Stony Brook" ) and the Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc. (" Brunswick" ) in March 2011.
The second amended complaint, formally interposed on March 18, 2014, raises the following claims: (1) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Defendants Kristen Steele, Dr. Thomas Vertrees, and Dr. David Margulies, alleging a violation of the right against unreasonable seizures as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitutions; (2) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Drs. Brenda Garro, Theddeus Ihennacho, and Abid Iqbal Khan, alleging a violation of the Plaintiff's substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by authorizing the Plaintiff's commitment when he did not pose a danger to himself or others; (3) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Dr. Garro alleging a violation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to apply " well accepted risk assessment criteria; " (4) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Drs. Inhennacho and Khan alleging a violation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by making an assessment of danger that did not assure some degree of accuracy; (5) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Drs. Garro, Ihennacho, and Khan alleging a violation of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; (6) a claim for a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., (the " ADA" ) against Stony Brook by allegedly making stereotypical assumptions about the Plaintiff based upon his diagnosis of mental illness; (7) a claim for a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (the " Rehabilitation Act" ) against Brunswick; (8) a New York State law claim for medical malpractice against Dr. Garro for failing to apply " well accepted empirically based criteria for assessing dangerousness" ; (9) a New York State law claim for medical malpractice against Drs. Ihennacho, Khan, and Brunswick for concluding that the Plaintiff was dangerous in the absence of an evaluation pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.37; and (10) a New York State law claim for medical malpractice against Brunswick for subjecting the Plaintiff to psychiatric treatment supervised by an individual other than a psychiatrist.
On June 3, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part separate motions to dismiss by Brunswick and Drs. Steele, Garro, and Stony Brook (the " State Defendants" ). In particular, the Court granted Brunswick's motion as to the Rehabilitation Act claim and dismissed that claim against it. The Court otherwise denied Brunswick's motion to dismiss the complaint against it. In addition, the Court granted the State Defendants' motion as to the claim relative to the payment of medical bills and the ADA claim against Stony Brook and the procedural and substantive due process claims against Dr. Garro. The Court otherwise denied the State Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint against them.
On October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (" Fed. R. Civ. P." ) 15(a) for leave to file a third amended complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to add a ...