Bey v. Westchester County Police Headquaters

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 27, 2025·No. 7:24-cv-09098·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ZARYUB MUSA TARIFF BEY; DIANE BURCHETTE BEY, Plaintiffs, -against- 24-CV-9098 (CS) WESTCHESTER COUNTY POLICE ORDER OF SERVICE HEADQUARTERS; AGENT OR COP R. CAMAD BG# 1145; OTHER’S WHO DID FAIL TO ID WHOM THEY ARE?, Defendants. CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs, who are appearing pro se, bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated their federal constitutional rights. By order dated January 27, 2025, the court granted Plaintiffs’ request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 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), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). 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 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). DISCUSSION A. Westchester County Police Headquarters Plaintiffs’ claims against the “Westchester County Police Headquarters” must be dismissed because city agencies or departments do not have the capacity to be sued under New York law. See Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange, 658 F. Supp. 2d 539, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“In New York, agencies of a municipality are not suable entities.”); Hall v. City

of White Plains, 185 F. Supp. 2d 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“Under New York law, departments which are merely administrative arms of a municipality do not have a legal identity separate and apart from the municipality and cannot sue or be sued.”); see also N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 2 (“The term ‘municipal corporation,’ as used in this chapter, includes only a county, town, city and village.”). In light of Plaintiffs’ pro se status and likely intention to assert claims against Westchester County, the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims against Westchester County, and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to replace the Westchester County Police Headquarters with Westchester County. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. This amendment is without

prejudice to any defenses Westchester County may wish to assert. B. Order of Service Because Plaintiffs have been granted permission to proceed IFP, they are 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

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, Plaintiffs are 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. 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 Plaintiffs to effect service on Defendants Westchester County and Westchester County Police Officer Camad (or Camal), Badge #1145, 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 these defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon these defendants. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date summonses are issued, Plaintiffs 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). Plaintiffs must notify the Court in writing if their addresses changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiffs fail to do so.

C. Valentin Order The Court construes Plaintiffs’ naming as defendants “other’s who did fail to ID whom they are,” as an attempt to sue, as John Doe defendants, the other Westchester County police officers who participated in the November 23, 2024 arrest. 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, Plaintiffs supply sufficient information to permit Westchester County to identify the Westchester County police officers who participated in their November 23, 2024 arrest. It is therefore ordered that the Westchester County Attorney, who is the attorney for and agent of Westchester County, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John Doe whom Plaintiffs seek to sue here and the address where the defendant may be served. The Westchester County Attorney must provide this information to Plaintiffs and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order. Within thirty days of receiving this information, Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace, not

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bey v. Westchester County Police Headquaters, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Bey v. Westchester County Police Headquaters (Bey v. Westchester County Police Headquaters) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange
658 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Hall v. City of White Plains
185 F. Supp. 2d 293 (S.D. New York, 2002)