Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20051117_0001540.SNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 22:51:21
Document Index: 21855151

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| FISK v. LETTERMAN
FISK v. LETTERMAN
SHIRLEY ANN FISK, Plaintiff,
DAVID LETTERMAN, WORLDWIDE PANTS, SUMNER M. REDSTONE, LESLIE MOONVES, MEL KARMAZIN, VIACOM INC., CBS INC., CITY OF NEW YORK, WILLIAM DELACE, MICHAEL Z. McINTEE, PROJECT HELP, DR. JOHN DOE, JOHN JOE, OFFICER J. SOE, DR. KOE, DR. RICARDO CASTANEDA, DR. STEVEN CIRIC, DR. WILLIAM ROMAN, SUSAN KOLCUN, DELSA BEST, GRACE MONES, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DOES 1-30, Defendants.
Plaintiff Shirley Ann Fisk ("Fisk") brought this action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983") against various private individuals
and corporations, state officials and unidentified defendants
(collectively, "Defendants"). Fisk alleges that she was falsely
accused of stalking television show host David Letterman and
that, in connection with an involuntary psychiatric commitment of
her, Defendants conspired to deprive her of civil rights
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. She has also filed
pendent state law claims.
Pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, defendants David Letterman, Leslie Moonves, Mel
Karmazin, William Delace, Michael McIntee, Sumner Redstone, Viacom Inc., CBS Broadcasting Inc. (named as "CBS Inc."), and
Worldwide Pants Inc. (collectively, the "CBS Defendants"), filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Defendant Susan Kolcun
("Kolcun") also moved for dismissal on the same ground.
Defendants Grace Mones ("Mones") and the State of Connecticut
(collectively, the "Connecticut Defendants") moved to dismiss the
complaint on the grounds of (1) sovereign immunity, (2) lack of
personal jurisdiction, (3) lack of service, (4) improper venue,
and (5) failure to state a claim.
By Order dated September 19, 2005, Magistrate Judge James C.
Francis IV, to whom this matter had been referred for pretrial
supervision, issued a Report and Recommendation (the "Report"), a
copy of which is attached and incorporated hereto, recommending
that the Court grant the various motions to dismiss the federal
claims Fisk's complaint asserts as to these defendants. The
Report further recommends that the Court not exercise pendent
jurisdiction to review Fisk's state law causes of action. Fisk,
whose time to submit objections to the Report was to expire on
October 3, 2005, requested a 10-day extension, which the Court
granted by memo-endorsed Order dated October 4, 2005, thus moving
the deadline to October 14, 2005. To date, Fisk has not filed any
response or requested any further extension. The CBS Defendants
filed a timely limited objection to the Report insofar as it recommends
dismissal of Fisk's federal claims against them without
prejudice. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the
Report, with the exception of the recommendation that the
dismissal as to the CBS Defendants be without prejudice.
A district court evaluating a Magistrate Judge's report may
adopt those portions of the report to which no "specific, written
objection" is made, as long as the factual and legal bases
supporting the findings and conclusions set forth in those
sections are not clearly erroneous. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Greene v. WCI Holding
Corp., 956 F. Supp. 509, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). "Where a party
makes a `specific written objection' within `[ten] days after
being served with a copy of the [magistrate judge's] recommended
disposition,' however, the district court is required to make a
de novo determination regarding those parts of the report."
Cespedes v. Coughlin, 956 F. Supp. 454, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
(citation omitted) (citing United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)). A district judge may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge. See Deluca v. Lord, 858 F. Supp. 1330, 1345
(S.D.N.Y. 1994); Walker v. Hood, 679 F. Supp. 372, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
The Court finds that the facts set forth in the Report are
supported by the record and are thus incorporated herein by
reference. Having conducted a review of the full record,
including, among other things, the parties' submissions on the
record, the Report and applicable legal authorities, the Court
concludes that the findings, reasoning and legal support for the
recommendations made in Report are not clearly erroneous. Insofar
as the CBS Defendants object to the recommendation that the
dismissal of the claims against them be without prejudice, upon
de novo review of the relevant documents of record and related
circumstances the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's
determination unwarranted because any further amendment of the
complaint encompassing Fisk's claims implicating the CBS
Defendants would be futile. See Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co.,
987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 1993).
The Report properly recognizes governing doctrine that a claim
under § 1983 must be predicated on state action and state actors.
See Report at 16-17 (citing cases). Moreover, a private party
who calls police officers for assistance or provides them with
information that may lead to an arrest of an individual does not
become a state actor rendering that party liable under § 1983 to
the person detained, unless the police officers were improperly influenced or controlled by the
private party. See id. at 19-20 (citing cases). The Report
further finds that, by Fisk's own account, Fisk's involuntary
commitment to the hospital was carried out by the doctors
involved and that she alleged no facts from which it could be
reasonably inferred that the process was in any way subverted as
a consequence of any actions taken by the CBS Defendants. See
id. at 20. Upon a review of Fisk's amended complaint and the
documentation attached to it, the Court is persuaded that the
record indicates that Fisk's commitment was conducted pursuant to
legal process carried out over an extended period of time, and
that the police officers, doctors and other state officials
involved acted independently of any of the CBS Defendants. Thus,
the evidence Fisk has entered into the record as part of her
pleadings refutes any theory that the CBS Defendants improperly
influenced or controlled the exercise of judgment by the police
and medical officials, and thus these defendants cannot properly
be found to have become state actors for the purpose of stating a
cause of action under § 1983.
The Court is mindful that in considering a motion to dismiss it
must view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, and read the allegations of a pro se litigant to
state the strongest claim they could support. The Court, however, is not obliged to reconcile plaintiff's own
pleadings that are contradicted by other matters asserted or
relied upon or incorporated by reference by a plaintiff in
drafting the complaint. See See Colodney v. Continuum Health
Partners, Inc., No. 03 Civ. 7276, 2004 WL 829158, at *7
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2004) ("Colodney fails to state a cause of
action for slander because the facts contained in his own
pleading contradict any naked assertion that Donovan's statements
about him were false. . . . Leave to amend is properly denied
since any amendment would be futile. Colodney having himself
undermined any allegation that Donovan's alleged libelous
statements were false, further litigation regarding Donovan's
statements is not warranted."); Matusovsky v. Merrill Lynch,
186 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (noting that in
evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)
(6) a court may consider "documents attached to the complaint as
exhibits, or incorporated by reference, as well as any documents
that are integral to, or explicitly referenced in, the
pleading. . . . If a plaintiff's allegations are contradicted by
such a document, those allegations are insufficient to defeat a
motion to dismiss."). Accordingly, the Court dismisses Fisk's
federal law claims against the CBS Defendants with prejudice and
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of the
state law claims asserted.
Based on its review of the Report as it pertains to Kolcun,
Mones and the State of Connecticut the Court is persuaded that
the factual and legal findings described therein are similarly
not clearly erroneous. Thus, the Court adopts the Report's
recommendation that the federal claims against those defendants
also be dismissed with prejudice and that the Court decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction with regard to Fisk's state
law claims against them.
ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation
of Magistrate Judge James F. Francis IV dated September 19, 2005,
with the exception of the recommendation that the granting of
certain motions to dismiss the complaint be granted without
ORDERED that the motions of defendants David Letterman,
Leslie Moonves, Mel Karmazin, William Delace, Michael McIntee,
Sumner Redstone, Viacom Inc., CBS Broadcasting Inc. (named as
"CBS Inc."), and Worldwide Pants Inc. (collectively, the "CBS
Defendants") (Docket No. 12); Susan Kolcun (Docket No. 53); and
Grace Mones and the State of Connecticut (Docket No. 23) to
dismiss the complaint be GRANTED. SO ORDERED. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The plaintiff, Shirley Ann Fisk, has brought this case under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against private individuals and corporations, state
officials and various unidentified defendants. This action arises
out of the involuntary psychiatric commitment of the plaintiff.
Ms. Fisk alleges that she was falsely accused of stalking
late-night talk show host David Letterman and that the defendants
conspired to deprive her of civil rights guaranteed by the
Constitution. She has also filed pendent state law claims.
Procedure, David Letterman, Leslie Moonves, Mel Karmazin, William
Delace, Michael McIntee, Sumner Redstone, Viacom Inc., CBS
Broadcasting Inc. (named as "CBS Inc."), and Worldwide Pants Inc.
(collectively the "CBS defendants") have moved to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Susan Kolcun has moved for dismissal on the same ground.
Grace Mones and the State of Connecticut (collectively the
"Connecticut defendants") have moved to dismiss the complaint on
the grounds of (1) sovereign immunity, (2) lack of personal
jurisdiction, (3) lack of service, (4) improper venue, and (5)
For the reasons stated below, I recommend that the ...