Sowell v. The New York City Police Department

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 11, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-05348·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RANDY SOWELL, Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-5348 (LTS) THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE ORDER TO AMEND DEPARTMENT; PUBLIC ASSISTANCE OFFICE 14TH STREET, MANHATTAN, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: On August 1, 2022, while Plaintiff Randy Sowell was incarcerated at the Vernon C. Bain Center (“VCBC”) on Rikers Island, he filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of himself and his minor daughter, D.D.S.S. See Sowell v. Annucci, ECF 1:22-CV-6538, 2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2024) (“Sowell I”). He alleged that Defendants violated his rights by refusing to discharge him from parole, and appeared to assert that he was housed at a Rikers Island facility with a prisoner who had an order of protection against him. On January 13, 2023, the Court directed Plaintiff to amend his complaint within 60 days, to address deficiencies in his pleadings. ECF 1:22-CV-6538, 6. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2023. ECF 1:22- CV-6538, 8. By order dated June 22, 2023, the Court: (1) severed Plaintiff’s unrelated claims from this action; (2) directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the claims arising from events that allegedly occurred in New Jersey to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; and (3) directed the Clerk of Court to open three new actions for the remaining severed

claims. ECF 1:22-CV-6538, 11. This action is one of the actions opened as per the Court’s June 22, 2023 order. By order dated June 27, 2023, the Court directed Plaintiff to render payment of the filing fees or submit request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff complied with the Court’s June 27, 2023 order on July 21, 2023. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) On November 28, 2023, in Sowell I, the Clerk’s Office received a postcard from

Plaintiff, indicating that Plaintiff “was extradited to New Jersey from Rikers Island.” ECF 1:22- CV-6538, 18. Plaintiff did not include a forwarding address, but public records maintained by the Cape May County Sheriff’s Office indicated that Plaintiff was detained at the Cape May Correctional Facility. Because Plaintiff did not file a change of address in this case, by order dated February 28, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to update the Court, in writing, with his new address, and advised him that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed a change of address on March 5, 2024. (ECF No. 7.) By order dated May 20, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP. 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 In this action, Plaintiff seeks to assert claims against the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) and the Public Assistance Office 14th Street.1 The following facts are drawn from the complaint.2 Following Plaintiff’s release from incarceration in March 2022, Defendant HRA authorized its 14th Street office to provide Plaintiff with benefits for storage of

1 The Court understands the Public Assistance Office 14th Street to be the New York City Human Resources Administration, Department of Social Services Office (“HRA”) formerly located at 112 West 14th Street, New York, New York, and now located at 109 East 16th Street, New York, New York. See https://www.nyc.gov/site/hra/locations/job-locations-and-service- centers.page[https://perma.cc/4XGG-TJR5]. 2 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless noted otherwise. his property, but the “office refused to give him to antagonize him in retaliation to complaints he filed against employees for similar actions.” (ECF No. 1 at 14.) Because of Defendant HRA’s refusal to help Plaintiff, he lost over $3,000 worth of property, legal documents, and intellectual property. (Id.)

Plaintiff appears to assert that Defendant HRA’s actions precipitated Plaintiff’s arrest on May 6, 2022 and, during the course of that arrest, NYPD officers assaulted Plaintiff. He further asserts that he was then falsely arrested on May 19, 2022 for trespassing, although there was no court order restricting him from entering HRA’s office. Plaintiff’s complaint was signed on February 8, 2023; at that time, he indicated that he remained incarcerated as per the May 19, 2022 arrest. As per Plaintiff’s letter to notify the court of his change of address, he was “released from the Cape May County Correctional Center on January 11, 2024 after being illegally extradited from Rikers Island,” and he is now residing at a rescue mission in Albany, New York. (ECF No.

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

Sowell v. The New York City Police Department, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Sowell v. The New York City Police Department (Sowell v. The New York City Police Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
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)
Cash v. County of Erie
654 F.3d 324 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Connick v. Thompson
179 L. Ed. 2d 417 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Jenkins v. City of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Jones v. Town of East Haven
691 F.3d 72 (First Circuit, 2012)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)