Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 8, 2024

Moore v. New York City Police Department

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:23-cv-01300
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Moore v. New York City Police Department, Judge Ramos ordered U.S. Marshals service for five newly identified officers in Moore’s false-arrest case.

Who this affects

Ali Alexander Moore and the five newly identified police defendants—Sergeant Joseph Angelone, Officer Freddy Tavares, Officer Michael Rios, Detective William Neville, and Detective Adam Imperato—are directly affected. The Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service were directed to take steps to complete service.

What happened

In Moore v. New York City Police Department, Ali Alexander Moore, appearing without a lawyer, alleges that defendants falsely arrested him on February 11, 2020, under a federal civil-rights law.

The City identified five New York City police members who interacted with Moore that day: Sergeant Angelone, Officer Tavares, Officer Rios, Detective Neville, and Detective Imperato. The City also reported that no officer named Reese interacted with Moore or worked in the 26th Precinct in 2020.

Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, prepare service forms, and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so these five defendants can be served. The order did not decide whether Moore was falsely arrested.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Moore v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:23-cv-01300
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
July 8, 2024

Background

Ali Alexander Moore, who is representing himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against certain state or local actors for violating constitutional rights. Moore alleges that the defendants falsely arrested him on February 11, 2020. The complaint was filed on February 10, 2023, and Moore later filed an amended complaint.

Because Moore was allowed to proceed without prepaying court fees, the Court previously directed the City, Morningside Heights Housing Corporation, and St. Luke’s Hospital/Mount Sinai Morningside to identify unknown defendants, including police officers, housing “peace officers,” and hospital personnel who interacted with Moore on February 11, 2020.

Identification of Defendants

In letters dated April 1 and May 1, 2024, the City identified five New York City police members who interacted with Moore on February 11, 2020: Sergeant Joseph Angelone, Officer Freddy Tavares, Officer Michael Rios, Detective William Neville, and Detective Adam Imperato. The City provided addresses where they could be served. It also stated that no New York City police officer named “Reese” interacted with Moore on that date and that no officer named “Reese” worked in the 26th Precinct in 2020.

Ruling

The Court explained that a plaintiff permitted to proceed without prepaying fees may rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process. The Clerk of Court was instructed to complete the required service forms for the five newly identified defendants, issue summonses, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.

The Court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Moore should request an extension of time. The Clerk was also directed to add the five defendants to the electronic filing system and terminate document 55.

This order concerns identifying and serving defendants. It does not decide the merits of Moore’s false-arrest allegations.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.