Etuk v. New York Department of Homeless Services

Background

Akaniyene William Etuk, who is representing himself and resides in Brooklyn, New York, filed an action seeking damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The court understood his amended complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The defendants named in the caption were the City of New York; the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS); Bronxworks; A&H Security Services; DHS Officer Albert Garcia, badge number 1198; DHS Officer Spyridon, badge number 955; and unidentified “John Doe” officers.

The court had previously allowed Etuk to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was proceeding without prepayment, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant immune from that relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and must read self-represented pleadings liberally, while still requiring enough factual matter to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Claims Against DHS

The court dismissed Etuk’s claims against DHS for failure to state a claim. It concluded that DHS is an agency of the City of New York and is not a separate entity that can be sued. The opinion does not state that the court dismissed the claims against the City or the other defendants on this ground.

Service on Identified Defendants

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare service forms for the City of New York, Bronxworks, A&H Security Services, Officer Garcia, and Officer Spyridon. The Clerk was directed to send the necessary documents to the United States Marshals Service so that the Marshals Service could serve those defendants with the summonses and amended complaint.

The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the relevant summonses issue. If service does not occur within that period, Etuk should request an extension of time. The court also required Etuk to notify the court in writing of any address change and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

Unidentified Officers

The court found that Etuk’s amended complaint provided enough information for the City’s Corporation Counsel to identify the unidentified DHS officers, other than Garcia and Spyridon, who were involved in the events described in the amended complaint. The court directed Corporation Counsel to provide the officers’ identities, any appropriate shield numbers, and their service addresses to Etuk and the court within 60 days of the order.

Etuk must file a second amended complaint naming any newly identified individuals and providing their service addresses within 30 days after receiving that information. The second amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. The court stated that it would screen the second amended complaint and, if necessary, issue another order directing service.

Disposition

The court dismissed Etuk’s claims against DHS, directed service on the City of New York, Bronxworks, A&H Security Services, Officer Garcia, and Officer Spyridon, and directed Corporation Counsel to identify and provide service information for additional DHS officers. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Etuk an information package, the order, and the amended complaint to Corporation Counsel. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Etuk permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.