Jackson v. Ross

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 15, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-03392
StatusUnknown

This text of Jackson v. Ross (Jackson v. Ross) 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
Jackson v. Ross, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSHUA J. JACKSON, Plaintiff, -against- 25 Civ. 3392 (JHR) HALEY ROSS; BROOKLYN DEFENDER ORDER OF SERVICE SERVICES; NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; NEW YORK CITY HEALTH + HOSPITALS, Defendants. JENNIFER H. REARDEN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights in connection with a false arrest on July 23, 2022 outside his home at the time in Brooklyn, New York. His complaint may also be construed as asserting claims under New York State law. See McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 158 (2d Cir. 2017) (holding that district courts must construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint as asserting claims under laws of which factual allegations suggest a violation). By Order dated June 26, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s 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 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). DISCUSSION A. Claims against the New York City Police Department (the “NYPD”), Inspector Gaby Celiba, and the City of New York 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 (“All 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.”). In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Inspector Gaby Celiba was one of the 67th

Precinct officers who arrested him. See Compl. at 8. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and clear intention to assert claims against Inspector Celiba and the City of New York, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to add Inspector Celiba and the City of New York as Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses that Inspector Celiba or the City of New York may wish to assert. B. Service on the identified defendants Haley Ross, Brooklyn Defender Services, and New York City Health + Hospitals (“H+HC”) 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

1Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires service of a summons 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. (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 Defendants Haley Ross, Brooklyn Defender Services, and New York City Health + Hospitals 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 Defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses and to deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Defendants Haley Ross, Brooklyn Defender Services, and New York City Health + Hospitals. If the Complaint is not served within 90 days after the date summonses are 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 such an extension). Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes. The Court may dismiss

the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. Inspector Gaby Celiba and the City of New York The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the NYPD and the New York City Law Department of this Order. The Court requests that Inspector Gaby Celiba and the City of New York waive service of summons. C. The Unidentified Defendants Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the Court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In his complaint, Plaintiff provides sufficient information to permit the NYPD to identify the other 67th Precinct police officers who arrested him on July 23, 2022. It is therefore ordered that the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the NYPD, ascertain the identity and badge number of each John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue, as well as the address where each John Doe may be served.2 The New York City Law Department must provide this information to the Court and to Plaintiff within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. Within thirty (30) days of receiving the aforementioned information, Plaintiff must file an

amended complaint naming those newly identified individuals as Defendants and providing their badge numbers. 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 asking Defendants to waive service. CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the New York City Police Department. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk of Court is directed to add Inspector Gaby Celiba and the City of New York as Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.

The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses for Haley Ross, Brooklyn Defender Services, and New York City Health + Hospitals; complete the USM-285 form with the address for those Defendants; and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service.

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

Related

Jenkins v. City Of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Emerson v. City of New York
740 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D. New York, 2010)
McLeod v. the Jewish Guild for the Blind
864 F.3d 154 (Second Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jackson v. Ross, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-ross-nysd-2025.