Etuk v. City of New York

Background

Akaniyene William Etuk, who is representing himself, filed an action invoking federal-question jurisdiction. He sought damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief against the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and Police Officer Frias, identified by shield number 30952. The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The court had previously granted Etuk permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Etuk was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to review the complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it would read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, while still requiring enough facts to make a claim plausible under the federal pleading rules.

Claims Against the NYPD

The court dismissed Etuk’s claims against the NYPD for failure to state a claim. It held that the NYPD is an agency of the City of New York and is not a separate entity that can be sued. Because Etuk clearly intended to assert claims against the City, the court treated the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York and directed the Clerk to replace the NYPD with the City in the case caption. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City may later assert.

Service on the City and Officer Frias

The court directed the Clerk to issue a summons for the City, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service paperwork, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the City. The court explained that service must occur within 90 days after the summons is issued, and that Etuk should request more time if service is not completed within that period.

The court found that the address Etuk listed for Officer Frias was likely not the correct service address. It directed the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York to obtain Officer Frias’s service address and provide it to the court and Etuk within 60 days. The court stated that it could later issue an order directing service on Officer Frias if necessary.

Disposition

Judge Woods dismissed the claims against the NYPD, directed the Clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant and arrange service, and directed the Corporation Counsel to provide Officer Frias’s service address. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Etuk an information package and sent the order and complaint to the City’s Corporation Counsel. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.