M. v. The City of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-03001
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In R.M. v. City of New York, Judge Furman dismissed some claims, allowed amendment, ordered service on others, and partly granted pseudonym protection.
R.M. and the named defendants. Claims against ACS, the NYPD, the FDNY, Bernard, Cardasha, Fletcher, and Patasall were dismissed, while service was ordered for the City, Commissioner Dannhauser, Akinyemi, Denton, Jason, Mason, and McFadden; the Law Department must identify Supervisor Scott. R.M. may use “R.M.” in public filings, but her identity is not concealed from defendants, and she has 30 days to file an amended complaint concerning the dismissed individual-defendant claims.
What happened
R.M. v. City of New York concerns a self-represented plaintiff’s constitutional-rights lawsuit under Section 1983 against the City, city agencies, officials, and ACS workers. She also asked to proceed publicly as “R.M.” and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The court dismissed claims against the Administration for Children’s Services, the New York City Police Department, and the New York City Fire Department because city agencies generally cannot be sued as separate entities. It also dismissed claims against Bernard, Cardasha, Fletcher, Mason, and Patasall because the complaint did not allege their personal involvement, while giving 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court ordered service on the City, Commissioner Dannhauser, and several ACS workers, and directed the Law Department to identify Supervisor Scott.
Judge Jesse M. Furman partly granted the request to use “R.M.” in public filings because the case involves the plaintiff’s minor children, but denied the request to conceal her identity from the defendants. He also directed that filings revealing her name remain sealed and ordered a redacted complaint for the public docket.
The detailed version
- M. v. The City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-03001
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 11, 2024
Background
R.M., who is proceeding without a lawyer, brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated her constitutional rights. The defendants named in the complaint are the City of New York; the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS); ACS Commissioner Jess Dannhauser; the New York City Police Department (NYPD); the New York City Fire Department (FDNY); and ACS workers Akintunji Akinyemi, James Bernard, Carndell Cardasha, Shakina Denton, Mtonya Fletcher, Joy Jason, Shanay Mason, Donna McFadden, Lieutenant Patasall, and Supervisor Scott.
The court had previously allowed R.M. to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Because she was proceeding without a lawyer, the court reviewed the complaint under the federal screening statute that requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court stated that it must read self-represented complaints liberally.
Service and identifying Supervisor Scott
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on the City of New York, Commissioner Dannhauser, and ACS workers Akinyemi, Denton, Jason, Mason, and McFadden. The court extended the service period so that service would be due 90 days after summonses issue. It also stated that R.M. should request more time if service is not completed within that period.
The court directed the New York City Law Department to determine Supervisor Scott’s full name and service address and provide that information to R.M. and the court within 60 days. After receiving the information, the court said it would direct that Scott’s full name be added to the caption and that the documents needed for service be sent to the Marshals Service.
Claims against municipal agencies
The court dismissed the claims against ACS, the NYPD, and the FDNY for failure to state a claim. It held that an agency of the City of New York is not a separate entity that can generally be sued.
Personal involvement and leave to amend
For a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. A defendant cannot be held liable merely because that person employed or supervised someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights.
The court found that R.M. did not allege facts showing how Bernard, Cardasha, Fletcher, Mason, and Patasall were personally involved in the events underlying her claims. It therefore dismissed the claims against those defendants for failure to state a claim. The court gave R.M. 30 days to file an amended complaint to provide more detail and potentially state valid claims against them. The court explained that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims R.M. wanted considered would need to be repeated.
The court instructed that an amended complaint should identify the relevant people and titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where the events occurred, describe the injuries, and state the requested relief.
Use of a pseudonym and sealing
The court granted R.M.’s motion to proceed under the pseudonym “R.M.” for public filings, principally because the case involves her minor children. It denied the motion to the extent R.M. sought to conceal her identity from the defendants.
The court directed that the complaint and the request to proceed without paying filing fees remain under seal because they disclosed R.M.’s name. It ordered R.M. to file, within 30 days, a copy of the complaint with her name and signature redacted for the public docket. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to keep specified filings under seal and terminated the docket entries associated with the motion and related filing.
Disposition
The order is a screening and case-management order rather than a decision on whether R.M.’s underlying constitutional allegations are ultimately correct. The court ordered service on several defendants, directed the identification of Supervisor Scott, dismissed the claims against ACS, the NYPD, the FDNY, Bernard, Cardasha, Fletcher, and Patasall, granted 30 days’ leave to amend against the individual defendants, and partially granted the motion to proceed pseudonymously.
The text contains an apparent inconsistency regarding Shanay Mason: the order directs service on Mason, but it also lists Mason among the defendants whose claims are dismissed for lack of alleged personal involvement. The opinion does not explain how these two directions should be reconciled.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.