McKinley v. Detective Kyle Crevatas

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 11, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-03606·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARK MCKINLEY, Plaintiff, -v.- POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, Shield No. 947732; POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, working in the 9th Precinct; 20 Civ. 3606 (KPF) POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, working special narcotics north; POLICE ORDER OF SERVICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, working special narcotics north; POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, working special narcotics north; NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, 9TH PRECINCT; CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: Plaintiff Mark McKinley, currently incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his rights. By Order dated May 8, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).1 STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, 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. §§ 1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). 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 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). DISCUSSION A. New York Police Department As an agency of the City of New York, the New York Police Department (NYPD) is not an entity 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, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[A] plaintiff is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”). Instead, any claims against the NYPD must be brought against the City of New York. Likewise, the Ninth Precinct is not an entity that can be sued. See, e.g., Wims v. N.Y. City Police Dep’t 52nd Precinct, No. 10 Civ. 6128 (PKC), 2011 WL 2946369, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2011)

(dismissing claims against 52nd Precinct); Donaldson v. Nassau Cnty. Police Dept. 3rd Precinct, No. 10 Civ. 1690 (JS) (ARL), 2010 WL 2976520, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 22, 2010) (dismissing claims against Nassau County Police Department 3rd precinct). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the NYPD and the Ninth Precinct because they lack the capacity to be sued.

B. 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. 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 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 4(m).”). 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 the City of New York. C. John Doe Police Officers 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 NYPD to

identify the John Doe Police Officers from the Seventh and Ninth Precincts and Special Narcotics North who were involved in his arrest or body cavity search on March 27, 2018. It is therefore ordered that the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the City of New York, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the defendant may be served. The New York City Law Department must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order.

Within thirty days after receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint with the true names of the John Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. An amended complaint form for Plaintiff to complete after receiving this information is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen it and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for the

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

McKinley v. Detective Kyle Crevatas, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

McKinley v. Detective Kyle Crevatas (McKinley v. Detective Kyle Crevatas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
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)
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)