Komatsu v. The City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 14, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-10942·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E DL OE CC #T :R ONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 4/14/ 2021 TOWAKI KOMATSU, Plaintiff, 20-CV-10942 (VEC) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted him. Plaintiff sues the City of New York; New York City Police Department (NYPD) Officers Saquoi Harris, Steven Perez, Liang Lin, Robert Holmes, Rodriguez, Frank Amill, and Joseph Tompkins; and seven John and Jane Doe NYPD officers. He also sues Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark,and Assistant District Attorneys Neelam Chhikara and Alana Brady. By order dated February 12, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) dismisses the claims brought against Clark, Chhikara, and Brady under the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity; (2) directs service on the City of New York and NYPD Officers Harris, Perez, Lin, Holmes, Rodriguez, Amill, and Tompkins; and (3) directsthe New York City Law Department to identify the seven John and Jane Doe Defendants. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss anIFP 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). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when 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, 474-75

(2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). DISCUSSION A. Prosecutorial Immunity Prosecutors are immune from civil suits for damages for acts committed within the scope of their official duties where the challenged activities are not investigative in nature but, rather, are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Simon v. City of New York, 727 F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)); see also Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (holding that absolute immunity is analyzed under “functional approach” that “looks to the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it”). In addition, prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit for acts that may be administrative obligations but are “directly connected with the conduct

of a trial.” Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 344 (2009). Here, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Clark,Chhikara, and Bradyare based on actions within the scope of their official duties and associated with the conduct of a trial. Therefore, these claims are dismissed because they seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit and as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i), (iii); see Collazo v. Pagano, 656 F. 3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding that claim against prosecutor is frivolous if it arises from conduct that is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process”). B. Order of Service 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. 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)). Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons and complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served summonses and the complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summonses are 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 4(m).”). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendantsthe City of New York, and NYPD Officers Harris, Perez, Lin, Holmes, Rodriguez, Amill, and Tompkins 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 each of these defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service allthe paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon these defendants. 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. ValentinOrder 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 amended complaint, Plaintiff

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

Komatsu v. The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Komatsu v. The City of New York (Komatsu v. The 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)
Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons
509 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Van de Kamp v. Goldstein
555 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Murray v. Pataki
378 F. App'x 50 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Collazo v. Pagano
656 F.3d 131 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Simon v. City of New York
727 F.3d 167 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)