Etuk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------x

AKANIYENE WILLIAM ETUK,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER

24-CV-8698 (EK)(SDE)

-against-

CAMBA INC. et al.,

Defendants.

------------------------------------x

ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Akaniyene William Etuk brings this civil

rights action against the City of New York, Kings County

Hospital, several private organizations, and a private

individual. He is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis is granted for the purpose of this

order. ECF No. 2. The complaint is nonetheless dismissed for

failure to state a claim.

Background

The following facts are taken from the complaint and

assumed to be true. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

570 (2007).

In October 2024, while Etuk was staying at the CAMBA

Men’s Shelter, police officers and EMTs responded to an

altercation between him and another resident. Compl. 10, ECF

No. 1.1 Plaintiff was handcuffed and taken to Kings County

Hospital against his wishes. Id. There, he was forcibly

medicated and held for six days. Id. at 11. While he was in

the hospital, his service animal was seized by the police and

taken to the Animal Care Center, where it was put up for

adoption. Id.

He brings claims for “unlawful detention and false

arrest,” excessive force, “denial of ADA protection,”

negligence, “wrongful medical diagnosis and treatment,”

violation of due process, and unreasonable search and seizure.

Compl. 11-12.2 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 12.

Legal Standard

A district court will dismiss an in forma pauperis

action when the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii)

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii)

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). At this stage, “the

court’s task is to assess the legal feasibility of the

complaint.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir.

2020).3 In doing so, the court “must take the facts alleged in

1 Page numbers in citations refer to ECF pagination.

2 The defendants are CAMBA, Inc., Arrow Security, Inc., Miss

Cummerbatch, the City of New York, Kings County Hospital, and the Animal Care

Center and its John Doe Partners. Compl. 9.

3 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order

accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal

quotation marks.

the complaint as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in [the

plaintiff’s] favor.” In re NYSE Specialists Sec. Litig., 503

F.3d 89, 91 (2d Cir. 2007).

Pro se complaints are “held to less stringent

standards” than pleadings drafted by attorneys, and the court

will read a pro se complaint liberally and interpret it as

raising the strongest claims it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant,

537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008). Still, a pro se plaintiff is

not exempt from “compliance with relevant rules of procedural

and substantive law.” Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir.

1983).

A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Courts

“are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a

factual allegation,” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements

of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,

do not suffice.” Id.

Discussion

A. Section 1983

Plaintiff brings claims for “unlawful detention and

false arrest,” excessive force, “wrongful medical diagnosis and

treatment,” “due process violation,” and “undue search and

seizure.” Compl. 11-12. The nature of the due process and

search-and-seizure claims is unclear. Id. at 12. The Court

construes these claims against the City, Hospital, CAMBA, Arrow

Security, and Miss Cummerbatch as brought under Rev. Stat.

§ 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

1. State Action as Against CAMBA, Miss Cummerbatch,

Arrow Security, and Animal Control Center

To prevail on a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must

allege that “a person acting under color of state law” has

violated a right guaranteed by federal law. Cornejo v. Bell,

592 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2010). Section 1983 does not,

generally speaking, apply to claims against private individuals

or private organizations. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,

526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999). And plaintiff alleges no facts to

suggest that CAMBA, Miss Cummerbatch, Arrow Security, or Animal

Control Center functioned as state actors. Therefore, the

claims against them must be dismissed.

2. Monell Liability

The City may be liable under Section 1983, but only if

Etuk shows that an official municipal policy or custom caused

the deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Monell v.

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). He alleges

no such policy or custom, and therefore the claims against the

City are dismissed.

3. Claims Against Kings County Hospital

Kings County Hospital, a division of the New York City

Health and Hospitals Corporation (“HHC”), is not independently

subject to suit. Ingrassia v. Health & Hosp. Corp., 130 F.

Supp. 3d 709, 716 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (dismissing an operating

division of HHC from an action); see Sulaymu-Bey v. City of New

York, No. 17-CV-3563, 2019 WL 1434597, at *10 n.18 (E.D.N.Y.

Mar. 29, 2019) (noting that HHC “has the capacity to be sued by

statute, [but] Kings County Hospital does not”). But even if we

construed plaintiff’s claims as asserted against HHC, they would

still be subject to the same requirements as the City under

Monell, and plaintiff alleges no HHC policy or custom that

caused a deprivation of his rights. Torres v. City of New York,

No. 19-CV-6332, 2019 WL 6051550, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13,

2019).

B. ADA Claims

Plaintiff brings an ADA claim against the City and

NYPD officers for “unlawfully seizing and mishandling [his]

service animal.” Compl. 12. “To establish a claim under Title

II [of the ADA], a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that []he is a

qualified individual with a disability; (2) that []he was

excluded from participation in a public entity’s services,

programs or activities or was otherwise discriminated against by

a public entity; and (3) that such exclusion or discrimination

was due to h[is] disability.” Hamilton v. Westchester County, 3

F.4th 86, 91 (2d Cir. 2021). Plaintiff does allege any

“qualified disability” and therefore cannot claim the protection

of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12102; Hamilton, 3 F.4th at 93.

C. State-Law Claims

We decline address plaintiff’s state-law claims at

this stage, given that the federal claims are not proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2); see Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v.

Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 31-32 (2025).

Leave to Amend

If a “liberal reading of the complaint gives any

indication that a valid claim might be stated,” a pro se

plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend the complaint.

Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000); see Shomo

v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176, 183 (2d Cir. 2009). The

plaintiff may file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days

of the date of this order. The amended complaint will replace,

not supplement, the original complaint, and must be captioned as

“Amended Complaint” and include docket number 24-CV-8698 (EK).

Any amended complaint that plaintiff files will be reviewed for

sufficiency. No summons shall issue at this time. If plaintiff

fails to file an amended complaint, judgment shall be entered.

For free, confidential, limited-scope legal

assistance, plaintiff may wish to contact the City Bar Justice

Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project in Brooklyn by

calling (212) 382-4729.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s complaint is

dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed

to mail a copy of this order to plaintiff and note the mailing

on the docket.

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)

that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore

in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any

appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee__________

ERIC KOMITEE

United State

s District Judge

D ated: April 13, 2026

Brooklyn, New York