Court Dismisses Suit Against FDNY Over Involuntary Transport

A lawsuit filed against FDNY for forcibly taking a woman for a psychological evaluation has been dismissed. Kelly MacNeal filed suit against several city agencies including FDNY over an ongoing dispute with her landlord, the NY City Department of Buildings and Housing Preservation and Development, that culminated with her being transported to the hospital against her will.

MacNeal, who has a history of traumatic brain injury and migraines triggered by exposure to chemical irritants including cigarette smoke fumes, was seeking to have the city’s Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) file suit for her against her landlord. Out of frustration, she claims she made a hyperbolic threat of suicide, and as a result was forcibly taken against her will and in retaliation for her complaints, to the hospital.  She sued the city alleging an assortment of discrimination and civil-rights-related claims, including violations of her Fourth Amendment Rights, false arrest, false imprisonment, and excessive force.

MacNeal’s suit was filed pro se in US District Court for the Southern District of New York. As explained in the decision:

• On May 6, 2022, at 1:17 a.m., Plaintiff emailed her landlord… and CCHR.
• Plaintiff’s email emphatically reported a violation, her symptoms of low blood oxygen, chest pains, shortness of breath and “exploding” headache as a result of the smoke fumes.
• She also said, “I am go[i]ng to kill myself if this doesn’t stop!” and “I should just end it quickly… I can’t stand the pain.”
• Later that day, NYPD officers and FDNY EMS personnel arrived at Plaintiff’s door, presumably in response to someone’s report of Plaintiff’s suicidal intentions.
• Over Plaintiff’s objection and insistence that she was not suicidal, the officers took Plaintiff to the hospital for a psychological evaluation.
• During this process, NYPD officers “violently handcuffed” Plaintiff, incorrectly “cutting into her wrist bone,” strapped her into a chair and dragged her out of her apartment building.
• After being forced to spend the night at the hospital under observation, she was released.
• The false arrest and false imprisonment claims, under both § 1983 and New York common law, are dismissed because probable cause existed to subject Plaintiff to a psychological evaluation.
• Probable cause is a complete defense to a false arrest and imprisonment claim.
• Plaintiff’s email threatening suicide provided CCHR and the officers a reasonable basis for believing that Plaintiff was a danger to herself.
• The § 1983 false arrest and false imprisonment claim also fails because the Amended Complaint does not allege facts showing a municipal policy or custom that was “the moving force of the constitutional violation.”
• The City is liable under Monell only when the allegedly constitutional conduct “implements or executes” a municipal policy, not when the City merely “employs a tortfeasor” who acted unlawfully beyond what the policy prescribes.
• A policy that mandates suicide evaluation of a person reported as a suicide threat, standing alone, is insufficient; the policy would have to require the officers to falsely arrest or imprison such person.
• The Amended Complaint does not allege or identify such a policy.
• The Amended Complaint seeks to assert an excessive force claim under § 1983.
• The claim is dismissed because the Amended Complaint does not plead a municipal policy of employing excessive force against people reported for suicidal risks.
• To the extent the claim is construed to assert excessive force under state law, the claim is dismissed because it does not allege a sufficiently grave or permanent injury.
• Tight handcuffing does not constitute excessive force unless it causes some injury beyond temporary discomfort.
• The most common injuries found to satisfy the injury requirement in handcuff cases are scarring and nerve damage.

Here is a copy of the decision: