Johnson v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 30, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-05264·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GLENN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-5264 (VSB) CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT BOROUGH MANHATTAN TASK ORDER OF SERVICE FORCE; POLICE OFFICER CLAUDIO DIAZ #16786; LIEUTENANT LYNDON TUCKETT; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-6 P.O., Defendants. VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims of false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution. By order dated June 29, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if 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). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. DISCUSSION A. New York City Transit Bureau Manhattan Task Force The Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the New York City Transit Bureau Manhattan Task Force,2 which is part of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) because subdivisions of the City of New York, such as the NYPD and its bureaus, are not entities

that can be sued. N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396 (“[A]ll 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, 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[A] plaintiff is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”).

2 Plaintiff identifies this defendant in the complaint as the “New York City Transit Borough Manhattan Task Force.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) B. Service on the City of New York 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.3 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 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 Defendant City of New York 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 this 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 Defendant City of New York. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the summons is 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 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. C. Lieutenant Tuckett, and Police Officers Diaz and John and Jane Doe Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying and serving defendants. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). Plaintiff does not provide

3 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 the summons and the complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that the summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summons is issued. service addresses for Defendants Tuckett, Diaz, and the six unidentified John and Jane Doe police officers. Plaintiff supplies sufficient information in the complaint to permit the New York City Police Department to identify the police officers responsible for the alleged deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights and the addresses where they can be served. It is therefore ordered that the New

York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the New York City Police Department, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John and Jane Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the addresses where Tuckett, Diaz, and the newly identified defendants may be served. The New York City Law Department must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within 60 days of the date of this order. Within 30 days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the John and Jane Doe defendants.

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

Johnson v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Johnson v. City of New York (Johnson v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
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)
Emerson v. City of New York
740 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Jenkins v. City of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)