Hughes v. City of Port Jervis

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 2022
Docket7:22-cv-00600
StatusUnknown

This text of Hughes v. City of Port Jervis (Hughes v. City of Port Jervis) 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
Hughes v. City of Port Jervis, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JEREMY HUGHES, Plaintiff, 22-CV-0600 (CS) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE PORT JERVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action against the Port Jervis Police Department, alleging violation of his civil rights. By order dated January 25, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). DISCUSSION A. Port Jervis Police Department Plaintiff’s claims against the Port Jervis Police Department must be dismissed because under New York law, city agencies or departments lack the capacity to be sued. See Omnipoint

Commce’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 Plaintiff’s pro se status and clear intention to assert claims against the City of Port Jervis, the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims against the City of Port Jervis,

and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to replace the Port Jervis Police Department with the City of Port Jervis, See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses the City of Port Jervis may wish to assert. B. Service on the City of Port Jervis Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. 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 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)). Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that the summons and complaint be served within 90

days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served the summons and complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued, The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summons is issued. If the complaint is not served within that time, 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); see also Murray v. Pataki, 378 F. App’x 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (“As long as the [plaintiff proceeding IFP] provides the information necessary to identify the defendant, the Marshals’ failure to effect service automatically constitutes ‘good cause’ for an extension of time within the meaning of Rule A(m).”). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant the City of Port Jervis 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 the 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 the defendant. Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. C. John Doe Police Officers Plaintiff asserts that on October 15, 2020, unnamed and unidentified members of the Port Jervis Police Department executed a warrant at Plaintiffs home and falsely arrested him. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, to also add “John Doe Police Officers 1-5” as defendants to this action. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses that these unidentified defendant may later wish to assert. Further, 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 sufficient information to permit the Port Jervis Police Department to identify the John Doe Police Officers who were involved with Plaintiff’s October 15, 2020 arrest. It is therefore ordered that the City Attorney for the City of Port Jervis, who is the attorney for and

agent of the Port Jervis Police Department, must ascertain the identities and badge numbers of the John Doe Police Officers whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the addresses where these defendants may be served. The City Attorney 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 J ohn Doe defendants. 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 John 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 Port Jervis Police Department. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute the City of Port Jervis as a Defendant. . The Clerk of Court is further directed to add, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, John Doe Police Officers 1-5, as defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons, complete the USM-285 form with the address for the City of Port Jervis, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service

to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail‘a copy of this order and the complaint to City Attorney, City of Port Jervis at: 20 Hammond St., Port Jervis, New York 12771. An “Amended Complaint” form is attached to this order. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package.! SO ORDERED. Dated: | | ve | we White Plains, New York ) l . ( p CATHY SEIBEL United States District Judge

! Plaintiff has consented to receive electronic service of notices and documents in this case (ECF No. 3.)

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS

City of Port Jervis 20 Hammond St.

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

Related

Murray v. Pataki
378 F. App'x 50 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hughes v. City of Port Jervis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-city-of-port-jervis-nysd-2022.