Shenxia v. New York City Department of Homeless Services
- Andrew Carter
- 1:24-cv-05082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Shenxia v. New York City Department of Homeless Services, Judge Carter dismissed claims against the agency, added New York City and four Doe employees, and ordered service.
Sheng Shenxia; the New York City Department of Homeless Services; the City of New York; and the four unidentified DHS employees.
What happened
In Sheng Shenxia v. New York City Department of Homeless Services, Sheng Shenxia, representing himself, alleged that four employees unlawfully entered his room, searched it, and took property, violating his Fourth Amendment rights.
The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services because a New York City agency cannot be sued as a separate entity. It directed the clerk to replace the agency with the City of New York and add four unidentified agency employees as defendants. The court also ordered steps to identify those employees and arrange service through the U.S. Marshals Service.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. did not decide whether the alleged searches or taking of property violated the Fourth Amendment. He ordered the unidentified employees to be named in an amended complaint and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Shenxia v. New York City Department of Homeless Services · No. 1:24-cv-05082
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 23, 2024
Background
Sheng Shenxia is representing himself and was previously allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. He alleged that four employees of the New York City Department of Homeless Services entered his room without permission, searched it, and took property. He characterized these allegations as violations of the Fourth Amendment.
Screening of the Claims
Because Shenxia was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the matter.
The court held that the Department of Homeless Services, as an agency of New York City, is not a separate entity that can be sued. It therefore dismissed Shenxia’s claims against that department. The order does not decide whether the alleged entries, searches, or taking of property violated the Fourth Amendment.
Changes to the Defendants
Because Shenxia clearly intended to sue New York City, the court directed the clerk to replace the Department of Homeless Services in the caption with the City of New York. The court also directed the clerk to add “DHS Employees John or Jane Doe 1–4” as defendants. The order states that these changes do not prevent the City or the unidentified employees from asserting defenses later.
Identifying and Serving the Defendants
The court directed the New York City Law Department to determine the identities and service addresses of the four unidentified employees and provide that information to Shenxia and the court within 60 days of the order. Shenxia must then file an amended complaint naming those employees within 30 days after receiving the information. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.
Because Shenxia was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court directed the clerk to issue a summons for the City of New York and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for service. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued. The court also required Shenxia to notify the court in writing if his address changes.
Ruling
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services, directed that the City of New York and four unidentified DHS employees be added as defendants, and ordered the procedures for identifying and serving those defendants. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.