| On NYC
Plan to Detain
Some Mentally
Ill People Now
Injunction
Denied,
Standing Cited
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell
book
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Jan 30 –
As NYC got
colder, on December
12, 2022 an
oral argument
was held on
Mayor Adams'
new policy,
thread here
and
below.
On December
8 law
firms
announced that
people
with mental
disabilities
filed an
emergency
request to
immediately
halt
NYC's
new policy to
greatly expand
coerced
transport to
psychiatric
hospitals of
people
perceived to
have “an
inability to
meet their
basic
needs.”
On
December 9,
the U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York Judge
in that case,
Paul A.
Crotty, ruled
that he would
hear the
matter on
December 12. Inner
City Press was
there, live
tweeted thread:
Judge
Crotty: The
City says what
was done by
the Mayor is
an application
of existing
law --
Petitioners'
lawyer Luna Droubi:
Not so. Now a
police
officer, who
is not a
mental health
professional,
can
involuntarily
detain.
City's
lawyer Alan
Scheiner:
Petitioners
are out of
line. This was
supposed to be
discovery
conference.
Now it seems
they are
requesting,
today, a TRO
[Temporary
Restraining
Order]. But
I'm happy to
speak to the
mertis.
Judge:
I wish you
would. City's
lawyer: Police
are authorized
to take people
into custody
if they appear
mentally unfit
-
Judge:
How is the
previous
policy
different from
the Mayor's
statement of
November-
City's lawyer:
This has been
the policy for
decades. The
Mayor only
added training
City's
lawyer: If
they are
conducting
themselves in
a manner that
poses a danger
of serious
danger.
Plaintiffs
make false
allegations
that the City
is authorizing
its officers
to take people
into custody
for being
mentally ill.
That's not the
case.
City's
lawyer: It's
true Mayor
Adams talked
at a press
conference
about a man
shadow boxing
in the street.
But that's
just a
comment.
Plaintiffs
want to
require
imminent
violence. But
that's not the
law. They're
just making it
up.
City's
lawyer:
Plaintiffs
don't have
standing.
There's no
evidence
anyone has
been taken
into custody
-- Judge: What
about Mr.
Green's
statement?
City's lawyer:
That's just
fear, based on
past
experience.
That does not
create
standing.
City's
lawyer: Just
the fact that
these
organization
do advocacy
from the
mentally ill
does not give
them standing.
This motion is
without
jurisdiction.
There is no
emergency.
Petitioners'
lawyer: The
City is
reinterpreting,
that led to
the press
conference
Judge:
Is it a change
from the
existing
policy of the
State
Commissioner
of Mental
Health?
Petitioners'
lawyer: Yes.
The Patron
Guide says
imminent harm.
City's lawyer:
That's false.
Plaintiffs
take offense
at this
definition, a
person
temporarily
deranged
City's
lawyer:
Imminent
danger is not
required under
9.41. People
can be cared
for... The
Mayor found
that the
policy wasn't
being
enforced...
There's nobody
in this room
like
that...
Judge: What
are you
reading from?
City's lawyer:
Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 1.
Judge:
Has the state
mental health
law changed?
Counsel: No.
Judge: The
City is in
compliance
with the state
law?
Petitioners'
lawyer: We say
no - they are
misapplying
state law.
City's lawyer:
Not meeting
their needs
might cause
them to be a
danger
Judge:
Doesn't the
City have to
comply with
state law?
City's lawyer:
It's only
guidance.
Judge: What's
wrong with
them making a
motion in the
pending
lawsuit?
City's lawyer:
This is a new
issue. It's
not relevant
to the
existing
claims. There
is no time
travel
City's
lawyer: They
are asking
your Honor to
order that the
police cannot
carry out
state law.
That's not
relief they
are entitled
to. It's not
an emergency,
not even for
emergency
discovery.
Judge: Should
the plaintiffs
amend their
complaint?
City's lawyer:
Yes
Petitioners'
lawyer: Mr.
Greene has
been harmed by
the policy
about to
change --
Judge: How can
you say it is
about to
change?
Petitioners'
lawyer: He is
walking the
streets of New
York with a
mental
disability and
- Judge: But
we can agree
it hasn't
happened yet
City's
lawyer: The
Mayor's
statement says
these are
indicia:
unawareness or
delusion...
Incapable of
meeting human
needs, an
incoherent
person. The
plaintiffs
want the City
to let people
starve to
death --
Judge
Crotty (former
NYC official):
Please.
(Groans)
Petitioners'
lawyer: Is
mumbling to
oneself
enough? This
is a dangerous
lowering of
standard.
Judge:
The policeman
only decides
about
transport to
hospital.
City's lawyer:
The police
have been
called on to
make this
determination
for decades.
Somebody has
to do it
Judge:
Your point of
view is that
nothing was
changed by
Mayor Adams'
press
conference?
City's lawyer:
Correct. Judge
Crotty: Then
what was the
purpose of the
press
conference?
City's
lawyer: Mayor
Adams wanted
existing law
used to the
further
extent. Here's
a
hypothetical:
I saw a man
walking around
on the tracks.
I didn't ask
why. But the
police could.
Judge: Anyone
could ask that
question.
City's lawyer:
Police could
order
transport
Judge:
How many
police
officers have
received this
training?
City's lawyer:
There was no
training in
the initiative
before the
initiative was
announced.
There are
materials I
haven't
brought with
me...
City's
lawyer: The
Finest Message
is the most
that most
police
officers would
have seen
about the
policy. We are
rolling out
training this
week. Judge:
How long will
it take?
City's lawyer:
I don't know.
Last I checked
we have 30,000
people in the
Department.
City's lawyer:
The purpose is
to tell the
police, you
don't have to
wait.
Petitioners'
lawyer: They
are moving
quickly.
Judge: The
Mayor believes
he's doing a
good thing for
the people
with, uh,
mental disease
Petitioners'
lawyer: They
say, an
incoherent
person... So a
person who is
mumbling can
be
involuntarily
committed to a
hospital.
Judge: They
say that's
been the
policy in the
past.
Petitioners'
lawyer: The
Mayor has
announced a
change to the
Patrol Guide
Petitioners'
lawyer: Mr.
Greene is no
longer going
out of his
house, out of
fear of being
taken into
custody.
City's lawyer:
Nobody has
standing.
These
organization
say on their
website they
want police
out of mental
health.
A
2d
petitioners'
lawyer:
Community
Access has
standing,
diversion
resources to
advocate. Mr.
Greene lives
in supportive
housing, he
believes he is
vulnerable to
police under
this new
policy. Judge
Crotty: I'll
have a
decision for
you shortly.
[When?] story
soon
Addendum:
After Judge
Crotty said
decision soon,
3d
petitioners'
lawyer Mr
Moore bring up
"all the way
back to
Eleanor
Bumpurs" case
in the Bronx.
City's lawyer:
Their
complaint is
350 paragraphs
& doesn't
ask for a
preliminary
injunction.
We've moved to
dismiss.
A 2d
petitioners'
lawyer (Jonathan
Moore):
Community
Access has
standing,
diversion
resources to
advocate. Mr.
Greene lives
in supportive
housing, he
believes he is
vulnerable to
police under
this new
policy.
On January 30, Judge Crotty denied
expedited discovery and a preliminary
injunction, on standing grounds: "without
either associational or organization standing,
the Organizational Plaintiffs cannot seek this preliminary
injunction."
The
motion for expedited discovery is
DENIED without prejudice as there is
no "good cause" absent an impending
hearing for a preliminary injunction.
Mirza v. Doe #1, No. 20CV9877, 2021 WL
2581421, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 23,
2021) (denying a motion to expedite
discovery absent a showing of good
cause). The Clerk of the Court is
directed to terminate the motions at
ECF Nos. 108, 122. SO ORDERED. (Signed
by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 1/30/2023)
Inner
City Press remains
covering the
case.
It
is Baerga v.
City of New
York et al,
21-cv-5762
(Crotty)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2022 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
