Dieng v. New York City NYPD

S.D. New York

Dieng v. New York City NYPD

DecidedMay 9, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-01834

StatusUnknown

This text of Dieng v. New York City NYPD (Dieng v. New York City NYPD) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dieng v. New York City NYPD, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITEDSTATES DISTRICTCOURT SOUTHERNDISTRICTOF NEWYORK BABACAR DIENG, Plaintiffs, 24-CV-01834(AS) -against- NEWYORKCITY NYPDet al., ORDER Defendants. ARUNSUBRAMANIAN,UnitedStates District Judge: This case was filed on March 10, 2024. Dkt. 1. Defendant New York City NYPD missed thedeadlinetoanswer,butafewdayslater, askedthisCourtto(1)refrainfromentering adefault or default judgment against it and (2) extend the time to answer. Dkt. 12. Because the New York CityNYPDhasnowappeared,theCourtwillnotenteradefault.Evenifadefaulthadbeenentered, there would be good cause to vacate it, given that the default was not willful, defense counsel requested an extension just a few days after the deadline to answer passed, and setting aside the default would not prejudice the party for whom default was awarded. See Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara,10F.3d90,96(2dCir.1993). Defendants’applicationforanextensionofthetimetoanswerisgranted.Thenewdeadline forall defendants toanswerorotherwiserespond tothecomplaint is June14,2024.

The application to request pro bono counsel is denied. To prevail on such a request, the litigant mustfirst showthat heis indigent.Louimev.Pressley,2024WL497840,at *1(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2024). “The Court must then consider whether the litigant’s claim seems likely to be of substance—a requirement that must be taken seriously.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); seeCooperv.A.SargentiCo.,877F.2d170,173–74(2dCir.1989);Hodgev.PoliceOfficers,802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986). First, the New York City NYPD and New York City FDNY are agencies of the City of New York and cannot be sued directly. See Moore v. New York City Police Dep't, 2023 WL 5935696, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2023); Bailey v. New York City Police Dep’t, 910 F. Supp. 116, 117 (E.D.N.Y. 1996); E. Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 781 F. Supp. 999, 1010 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Second, at this juncture, the Court cannot make the determination that plaintiffs claims meet the requirement that they are “likely to be of substance—a requirement that must be taken seriously.” Louime, 2024 WL 497840, at *1; Cooper, 877 F.2d at 174 (noting the “importance of our ruling in Hodge [v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986)] requiring an indigent seeking a free lawyer to first pass the test of likely merit”). If, as this litigation progresses, plaintiff can allege or show additional facts to support his contentions, he may renew his application at that time. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Dkts. 10, 12. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 9, 2024 ) New York, New York ARUN SUBRAMANIAN United States District Judge

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

UNITEDSTATES DISTRICTCOURT SOUTHERNDISTRICTOF NEWYORK BABACAR DIENG, Plaintiffs, 24-CV-01834(AS) -against- NEWYORKCITY NYPDet al., ORDER Defendants. ARUNSUBRAMANIAN,UnitedStates District Judge: This case was filed on March 10, 2024. Dkt. 1. Defendant New York City NYPD missed thedeadlinetoanswer,butafewdayslater, askedthisCourtto(1)refrainfromentering adefault or default judgment against it and (2) extend the time to answer. Dkt. 12. Because the New York CityNYPDhasnowappeared,theCourtwillnotenteradefault.Evenifadefaulthadbeenentered, there would be good cause to vacate it, given that the default was not willful, defense counsel requested an extension just a few days after the deadline to answer passed, and setting aside the default would not prejudice the party for whom default was awarded. See Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara,10F.3d90,96(2dCir.1993). Defendants’applicationforanextensionofthetimetoanswerisgranted.Thenewdeadline forall defendants toanswerorotherwiserespond tothecomplaint is June14,2024.

The application to request pro bono counsel is denied. To prevail on such a request, the litigant mustfirst showthat heis indigent.Louimev.Pressley,2024WL497840,at *1(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2024). “The Court must then consider whether the litigant’s claim seems likely to be of substance—a requirement that must be taken seriously.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); seeCooperv.A.SargentiCo.,877F.2d170,173–74(2dCir.1989);Hodgev.PoliceOfficers,802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986). First, the New York City NYPD and New York City FDNY are agencies of the City of New York and cannot be sued directly. See Moore v. New York City Police Dep't, 2023 WL 5935696, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2023); Bailey v. New York City Police Dep’t, 910 F. Supp. 116, 117 (E.D.N.Y. 1996); E. Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 781 F. Supp. 999, 1010 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Second, at this juncture, the Court cannot make the determination that plaintiffs claims meet the requirement that they are “likely to be of substance—a requirement that must be taken seriously.” Louime, 2024 WL 497840, at *1; Cooper, 877 F.2d at 174 (noting the “importance of our ruling in Hodge [v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986)] requiring an indigent seeking a free lawyer to first pass the test of likely merit”). If, as this litigation progresses, plaintiff can allege or show additional facts to support his contentions, he may renew his application at that time. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Dkts. 10, 12. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 9, 2024 ) New York, New York ARUN SUBRAMANIAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dieng v. New York City NYPD, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dieng-v-new-york-city-nypd-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack