UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 10/22 /2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK QUINTIN J. BALLENTINE, Plaintiff, 24-CV-6121 (MKV) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE NYCPD, Defendant. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Quintin Ballentine, who is appearing pro se, brings this action against the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”). He alleges that on June 1, 2024, four officers from the 52nd Precinct of the NYPD took him into custody and brought him to St. Barnabas Hospital to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. By order dated August 19, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. As set forth below, the Court (1) dismisses the NYPD because it does not have the capacity to be sued; (2)adds the City of New York as a defendant under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (3) directs service on the City of New York; and (4) directs the New York City Law Department to provide the Court and Plaintiff with the names of the NYPD officers allegedly involved in the June 1, 2024 incident and the addresses where they may be served. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
DISCUSSION A. New York City Police Department Dismissed from the Action Plaintiff’s claims against the NYPD must be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued. N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396 (“[A]ll actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.”); Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Emerson v. City of New York, 740 F. Supp. 2d 385, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[A] plaintiff is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”). B. City of New York Added as a Defendant In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and clear intention to assert claims against the City of
New York, the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to replace the NYPD with the City of New York. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses the City of New York may wish to assert. C. Service on the City of New York Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service.1 Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process . . . in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the court must order the Marshals Service to
serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP)). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant City of New York through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for Defendant. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Defendant. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the summons is issued, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service).
Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. D. John or Jane Doe NYPD Officers Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the complaint, Plaintiff supplies
1Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have effected service until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that any summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date any summonses issue. sufficient information to permit the NYPD to identify the four NYPD officers with whom Plaintiff interacted on June 1, 2024. It is therefore ordered that the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the NYPD, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John or Jane Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the defendant may be served.2 The Law Department must provide this information to Plaintiff
and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order. Within thirty days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the Doe defendant(s). The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. An amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for the named Doe Defendants and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the NYPD. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk of Court is directed to add the City of New York as a Defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 10/22 /2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK QUINTIN J. BALLENTINE, Plaintiff, 24-CV-6121 (MKV) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE NYCPD, Defendant. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Quintin Ballentine, who is appearing pro se, brings this action against the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”). He alleges that on June 1, 2024, four officers from the 52nd Precinct of the NYPD took him into custody and brought him to St. Barnabas Hospital to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. By order dated August 19, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. As set forth below, the Court (1) dismisses the NYPD because it does not have the capacity to be sued; (2)adds the City of New York as a defendant under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (3) directs service on the City of New York; and (4) directs the New York City Law Department to provide the Court and Plaintiff with the names of the NYPD officers allegedly involved in the June 1, 2024 incident and the addresses where they may be served. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
DISCUSSION A. New York City Police Department Dismissed from the Action Plaintiff’s claims against the NYPD must be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued. N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396 (“[A]ll actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.”); Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Emerson v. City of New York, 740 F. Supp. 2d 385, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[A] plaintiff is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”). B. City of New York Added as a Defendant In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and clear intention to assert claims against the City of
New York, the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to replace the NYPD with the City of New York. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses the City of New York may wish to assert. C. Service on the City of New York Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service.1 Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process . . . in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the court must order the Marshals Service to
serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP)). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant City of New York through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for Defendant. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Defendant. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the summons is issued, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service).
Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. D. John or Jane Doe NYPD Officers Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the complaint, Plaintiff supplies
1Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have effected service until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that any summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date any summonses issue. sufficient information to permit the NYPD to identify the four NYPD officers with whom Plaintiff interacted on June 1, 2024. It is therefore ordered that the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the NYPD, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John or Jane Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the defendant may be served.2 The Law Department must provide this information to Plaintiff
and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order. Within thirty days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the Doe defendant(s). The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. An amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for the named Doe Defendants and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the NYPD. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk of Court is directed to add the City of New York as a Defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 and to terminate the NYPD as a defendant in this action. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons for the City of New York, complete the USM-285 form with the address for this defendant, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service.
2 If the Doe defendant is not a current NYPD officer, the Law Department must provide a residential address where the individual may be served. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and the complaint to the New York City Law Department at: 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 22, 2024 New York, New York / ‘ Py Kee aloe Unirted States District Judge
SERVICE ADDRESS FOR EACH DEFENDANT
New York City New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007