Hicks v. Chavez

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 20, 2023·No. 7:23-cv-08088·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DARNELL HICKS, Plaintiff, 7:23-CV-8088 (KMK) -v.- ORDER OF SERVICE DET. CHAVEZ; JOHN DOE; JOHN DOE, Defendants. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Darnell Hicks, of Peekskill, New York, who appears pro se, brings this Action invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. He seeks unspecified relief and sues: (1) Detective Chavez, of the Ossining Police Department (“OPD”); and (2) unidentified “John Doe” defendants. The Court construes Plaintiff’s Complaint as asserting a claim of a Fourth Amendment violation arising from Plaintiff’s arrest while he was in a state of undress, and a claim of excessive force arising from his being handcuffed too tightly, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as related claims under state law. By order dated September 13, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. The Court directs service on Detective Chavez. The Court also grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to name as defendants, if he knows, any other members of the OPD who participated in his arrest, and to allege facts showing those individuals’ direct and personal involvement in the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. DISCUSSION A. Service on Detective Chavez 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 § 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 Detective Chavez 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 that Defendant. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons for Detective Chavez, and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon that Defendant. If the Complaint is not served on Detective Chavez within 90 days after the date the summons is issued for that Defendant, 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.

1 Although 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 served a summons and the Complaint on Detective Chavez until the Court reviewed the Complaint and ordered that a summons be issued for that defendant. The Court therefore extends the time to serve Detective Chavez until 90 days after the date that a summons is issued for that defendant. B. The unidentified “John Doe” defendants The Court understands that, by naming unidentified “John Doe” individuals as defendants, Plaintiff is attempting to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against additional members of the OPD who were allegedly involved with his arrest. To state a claim under Section 1983 against such individuals, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that those individuals

were directly and personally involved in an alleged constitutional deprivation. See Spavone v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Serv., 719 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2013) (“It is well settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in the alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A defendant may not be held liable under Section 1983 solely because that defendant employs or supervises a person who violated the plaintiff’s rights. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.”). Rather, “[t]o hold a state official liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must plead and prove the elements of the underlying constitutional violation directly against the official[.]” Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609, 620 (2d Cir. 2020).

Plaintiff names unidentified “John Doe” Defendants, but alleges no facts describing those Defendants (that is, whether they are members of the OPD), and whether they were directly and personally involved in the alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in which he names as defendants individual members of the OPD, other than Detective Chavez, who were allegedly involved with his arrest—if possible, by name and badge number—and in which he alleges facts showing those defendants’ direct and personal involvement in the alleged violations of his constitutional rights.2 C. Leave to amend Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his Complaint to provide more facts about his claims as to the unidentified “John Doe” Defendants. Plaintiff must name as the defendant(s) in the caption3 and in the statement of claim those individuals who were allegedly directly and

personally involved in the deprivation of his federal rights. If Plaintiff does not know the name of a defendant, he may refer to that individual as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” in both the caption and the body of the amended complaint.4 The naming of “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” defendants, however, does not toll the statute of limitations period governing Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983, and Plaintiff shall be responsible for ascertaining the true identity of any “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” defendants and amending his Complaint to include the identity of any “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” defendants before the applicable statute of limitations period expires. Should Plaintiff seek to add a new claim or party after the statute of limitations period has expired, he must meet the requirements of Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2 If Plaintiff does not know the names or badge numbers of those defendants, he should follow the instructions as to how to name unidentified “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” defendants that can be found in the “Leave to amend” section of this Order. 3 The caption is located on the front page of the complaint. Each individual defendant must be named in the caption. Plaintiff may attach additional pages if there is not enough space to list all of the defendants in the caption. If Plaintiff needs to attach an additional page to list all defendants, he should write “see attached list” on the first page of the amended complaint. Any defendants named in the caption must also be discussed in Plaintiff’s statement of claim.

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

Hicks v. Chavez, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Hicks v. Chavez (Hicks v. Chavez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Tangreti v. Bachmann
983 F.3d 609 (Second Circuit, 2020)