Sander v. City of Mount Vernon

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 18, 2024·No. 7:23-cv-06204·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PATRICK SANDER, Plaintiff, 23-CV-6204 (CS) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE CITY OF MOUNT VERNON; WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants. CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Patrick Sander, who resides in Albany, New York, brings this action, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the City of Mount Vernon and the Westchester County Department of Corrections (“WDOC”). He asserts claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and denial of due process. By order dated August 7, 2023, Chief Judge Swain granted Plaintiff’ s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) – that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) directs the Clerk of Court to add as individual defendants “John Does 1-10”; (2) dismisses the claims against the WDOC for the same reasons stated by Judge Swain in the May 6, 2024 order; (3) adds Westchester County as a defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; (4) directs service on the City of Mount Vernon and the County of Westchester; and (5) directs the Corporation Counsel of the City of Mount Vernon to provide Plaintiff and the Court with the identities, shield numbers and service addresses of the Mount Vernon Police Department (“MVPD”) officers involved with the events alleged in Plaintiff’s amended complaint. 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). 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. Adding “John Does 1-10” as defendants Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 21”), the Court, on its own motion, “may[,] at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; see Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich, Ltd., 118 F. Supp. 3d 591, 618-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (Rule 21 “afford[s] courts discretion to shape litigation in the interests of efficiency and justice.”). Under this rule, courts have added an individual as a defendant in an action, though that individual is not named as a defendant in the complaint, because he or she is mentioned “throughout the body of the

[c]omplaint” as involved in the underlying alleged events. George v. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Corr., No. 20-CV-1723 (KMK), 2020 WL 1922691, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2020); see Adams v. NYC Dep’t of Corrs., No. 19-CV-5909 (VSB), 2019 WL 2544249, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2019). Plaintiff refers to unidentified individual officers of the MVPD as being involved in the events alleged in his amended complaint. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and his allegations, the Court understands Plaintiff’s amended complaint as asserting false arrest claims against those unidentified individuals. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to add unidentified “John Does 1-10” as placeholder defendants in this action, under Rule 21. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses those individuals may wish to assert once identified. B. Claims against the WDOC The Court assumes familiarity with the underlying facts of this case as summarized in Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain’s May 6, 2024 order. (ECF 5) In that order, Chief Judge Swain

held that Plaintiff’s claims against the WDOC were dismissed because municipal agencies or departments do not have the capacity to be sued under New York law. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff again names the WDOC as a defendant in the amended claim. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to reassert the previously dismissed claims against the WDOC in the amended complaint, the Court dismisses them for the reasons stated in Chief Judge Swain’s order. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and clear intention to assert claims against County of Westchester, the Court construes the amended complaint as asserting claims against the County of Westchester, and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to replace the WDOC with the County of Westchester. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses the County of Westchester may wish to assert.

C. Service on the City of Mount Vernon and the County of Westchester Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to rely on assistance from the Court and the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to effect service.1 Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The

1Although 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 effected service until the Court reviewed the amended complaint and ordered that any summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date that any summonses issue. 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 USMS to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on the City of Mount Vernon and County of Westchester, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a USMS Process Receipt and Return form

(“USM-285 form”) for each defendant. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses for these defendants, and deliver to the USMS all the paperwork necessary for the USMS to effect service of a summons and the amended complaint (ECF 8) upon each defendant. If the amended 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.

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

Sander v. City of Mount Vernon, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Sander v. City of Mount Vernon (Sander v. City of Mount Vernon) — 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)
Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.
118 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. New York, 2015)