Phillip Blackwood v. White Plains Police Department; Dick’s Sporting Goods

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: March 26, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-06306
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PHILLIP BLACKWOOD, Plaintiff, 25-CV-6306 (LLS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND WHITE PLAINS POLICE DEPARTMENT; DICK’S SPORTING GOODS, Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, alleging that Defendants violated “all of” his constitutional rights and falsely arrested him. (ECF 1 at 2.) By order dated August 13, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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 of the claims raised. 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. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this somewhat barebones complaint against the White Plains Police Department and Dick’s Sporting Goods. According to Plaintiff, in November 2024, when he was driving his car in White Plains, “2 police cars one in front and back slammed on breaks force me to stop said we stole something took us to jail without any questions causing embarrassment.”1 (ECF 1 at 5.) Plaintiff seeks unspecified relief for the time he “did in jail” and “went to court.” (Id. at 6.)

1 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless noted otherwise. DISCUSSION A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Rule 8 Because Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights, the Court construes his complaint as asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To assert Section 1983 claims, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of

state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8, because he does not provide sufficient facts to state plausible Section 1983 claims against Defendants. First, Plaintiff states that two police cars blocked his car, after which he was arrested and jailed. (ECF 1 at 5.) He does not provide any context for these events. Without further explanation of what occurred, the Court cannot evaluate the plausibility of any claims that Plaintiff might assert against any police officers arising from these events. Second, Plaintiff alleges no facts whatsoever against Dick’s Sporting Goods, and it is not clear why the store is even named as a Defendant. Cf. Iwachiw v. New York State Dep’t of Motor

Vehicles, 299 F. Supp. 2d 117, 121 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (“[W]here the complaint names a defendant in the caption but contains no allegations indicating exactly how the defendant violated the law or injured the plaintiff,” dismissal of the complaint is appropriate), aff’d, 396 F.3d 525 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, consistent with this order, to provide additional facts in support of his claims that Defendants violated his rights. B. The White Plains Police Department (“WPPD”) Under New York law, a plaintiff cannot bring a claim against a municipal agency that does not have the capacity to be sued under its municipal charter.” Edwards v. Arocho, 125 F.4th 336, 354 (2d Cir. 2024) (emphasis in original); see Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange, 658 F. Supp. 2d 539, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (noting that in New York, agencies of a municipality are, generally, not “suable”). The WPPD has no separate legal identity apart from the municipality that created it, and it is thus a non-suable entity. See Parra v. City of White

Plains, 48 F. Supp. 3d 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing Hall v. City of White Plains, 185 F.Supp.2d 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the WPPD for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and clear intention to assert claims against the City of White Plains, the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims against the City of White Plains, and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to replace the WPPD with the City of White Plains. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. C. The City of White Plains When a Section 1983 plaintiff sues a municipality, like the City of White Plains, it is not enough for the plaintiff to allege that one of the municipality’s employees or agents engaged in some wrongdoing. The plaintiff must show that the municipality itself caused the violation of the

plaintiff’s rights. See Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011) (“A municipality or other local government may be liable under this section [1983] if the governmental body itself ‘subjects’ a person to a deprivation of rights or ‘causes’ a person ‘to be subjected’ to such deprivation.” (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978))); Cash v. Cnty. of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 333 (2d Cir. 2011). In other words, to state a claim under Section 1983 against a municipality, the plaintiff must allege facts showing: (1) the existence of a municipal policy, custom, or practice, and; (2) that the policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Jones v. Town of East Haven, 691 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012); see Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997) (internal citations omitted). A plaintiff may satisfy the policy, custom, or practice requirement by alleging facts supporting the existence of one of the following:

(1) formal policy officially endorsed by the municipality; (2) actions taken by government officials responsible for establishing the municipal policies that caused the particular deprivation in question; (3) a practice so consistent and widespread that, although not expressly authorized, constitutes a custom or usage of which a supervising policy-maker must have been aware; or (4) a failure by policymakers to provide adequate training or supervision to subordinates to such an extent that it amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of the those who come into contact with the municipal employees. Brandon v. City of New York, 705 F. Supp. 2d 261, 276-77 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain facts suggesting that a policy, custom, or practice of the City of White Plains caused a violation of his federal constitutional rights. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to allege facts in support of a municipal liability claim, should he wish to do so. D. Dick’s Sporting Goods A claim for relief under Section 1983 must allege facts showing that each defendant acted under the color of a state “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Private parties therefore generally are not liable under the statute. Sykes v. Bank of America, 723 F.3d 399, 406 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001)); see also Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 323 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[T]he United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties.”). Dick’s Sporting Goods is a private entity that is not alleged to work for any state or other government body, and Plaintiff has thus not stated a claim against this defendants under Section 1983.2 LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its

defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to provide more facts about his claims. First, Plaintiff must name as the defendants in the caption3 and in the statement of claim those individuals who were allegedly involved in the deprivation of his federal rights. If Plaintiff does not know the name of a defendant, he may refer to that individual as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”

2 Although there are circumstances under which the actions of a private actor may be attributable to the state, see Sylbalski v. Indep. Grp. Home Living Prog., Inc., 546 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 2008), Plaintiff has not alleged any facts suggesting that any of those circumstances apply here. The Court will reconsider this determination should Plaintiff file an amended complaint suggesting otherwise. Plaintiff may be able to assert state-law claims against this Defendant under its supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 3 The caption is located on the front page of the complaint. Each individual defendant must be named in the caption. Plaintiff may attach additional pages if there is not enough space to list all of the defendants in the caption. If Plaintiff needs to attach an additional page to list all defendants, he should write “see attached list” on the first page of the Amended Complaint. Any defendants named in the caption must also be discussed in Plaintiff’s statement of claim. in both the caption and the body of the amended complaint.4 The naming of John Doe defendants, however, does not toll the three-year statute of limitations period governing this action and Plaintiff shall be responsible for ascertaining the true identity of any “John Doe” defendants and amending his complaint to include the identity of any “John Doe” defendants

before the statute of limitations period expires. Should Plaintiff seek to add a new claim or party after the statute of limitations period has expired, he must meet the requirements of Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant. If Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, Plaintiff must provide it. Plaintiff should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information should include: a) the names and titles of all relevant people; b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where each event occurred; c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief. Essentially, Plaintiff’s amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated his federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

4 For example, a defendant may be identified as: “Police Officer John Doe #1 on duty August 31, 2010, during the 7-3 p.m. shift.” Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wants to include from the original complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint. The City Bar Justice Center (“CBJC”) operates the SDNY Federal Pro Se Legal

Assistance Project to assist self-represented parties with civil cases in this court. Appointments can be scheduled by phone (212-382-4794), email (fedprosdny@nycbar.org), or by completing the CBJC’s intake form. The CBJC is a private organization that it not part of the court, and the CBJC’s SDNY Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project cannot accept filings on behalf of the court. A flyer with details is attached. CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the White Plains Police Department. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The Clerk of Court is directed to add the City of White Plains as a Defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit

within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 25-CV-6306 (LLS). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff may receive court documents by email by completing a Consent to Electronic Service form.° SO ORDERED. Dated: March 25, 2026 New York, New York Louis L. Stanton U.S.D.J.

> If Plaintiff consents to receive documents by email, Plaintiff will no longer receive court documents by regular mail.

74 i) LO) em WS) P| Led a J en] eas i □□ Ramaatsmecielel a al>aam Dita a renmre)mNI-h)\'an aes BIND A) □□

ABOUT THE PROJECT The Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project (Fed Pro) provides limited assistance to self- represented litigants (plaintiffs and defendants) with cases involving civil legal matters in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

HOW TO SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT

To schedule an appointment for assistance with City Bar Justice [m] a = [m] Center’s Fed Pro project, you must first complete our online oi Fe ' Teas re tae Intake Form. pager ea e Our online Intake Form is accessible via one of these eee A □□ methods: i Phas o Scan the QR code to the right. 2 i □□ Go to bit.ly/prosesdny [m] Poll e Once on the City Bar Justice Center Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance page, scroll down to " "and then click " "to be taken to the Intake Form. e When the Intake Form asks: "How can we help you", please select "Federal Court Case" from the drop-down menu. The Fed Pro SDNY office will receive your application ONLY if you select "federal court case." If you select anything else, you will need to re-complete your application. Once you complete the form, someone will contact you, usually within five business days, to schedule an appointment. If you are not able to complete the Intake Form, please call (212) 382-4794, leave a detailed message, and wait for us to call you back, typically within five business days.

HOW WE HELP

mrot=) navel me] ae atel-m ali 0) f-1-1-1 one 1 a wor] □□□ 53°) 3 ode 8) ONT aT MTnaVAM=Xe btctoro) 0-1-1 a Ae Lol ne O O @Col Ui at-1-1 0 0}-a-) ole] Uhm olen -valai-l muctel-le-) Ofoy ase) WM ahmed i txexe)'.-1 a7 (ol FVinakcmo) ace) ai nl ayacien ie 2&2 Anes elas abay-ae-lele □□□ E-Taliat-mactel-lel| 22 ee □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ a= Ae eela-ssscmelerelerel area il-veiFe saclay) Mewar Alay mel haere Teli ay -4omer ale!