Hicks v. Marques
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-07890
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Hicks v. Marques, Judge Roman dismissed claims against two officers but ordered service on two others.
Darnell Hicks’s claims against Officers Ryan and Ballen were dismissed, with 30 days to replead. The claims against Officers J. Marques and Malfetano were directed to proceed to service by the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Hicks v. Marques, Darnell Hicks, representing himself, brought constitutional-rights claims under a federal civil-rights law against four Ossining police officers. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court dismissed Hicks’s claims against Officers Ryan and Ballen because he did not allege facts showing their personal involvement. It gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing those claims.
Judge Roman directed the Clerk to issue summonses and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Officers J. Marques and Malfetano. The opinion does not decide the underlying constitutional claims against those officers.
The detailed version
- Hicks v. Marques · No. 7:24-cv-07890
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 12, 2024
Background
Darnell Hicks, appearing without a lawyer, alleged that four Ossining police officers violated his federal constitutional rights. The court treated the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations by state officials. The court had previously allowed Hicks to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Screening of Claims Against Ryan and Ballen
When a person proceeds without prepaying filing fees, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also must dismiss claims when it lacks authority to hear them.
The court ruled that Hicks did not allege facts showing how Officers Ryan and Ballen were personally involved in the events underlying his claims. Because personal involvement is required for liability under § 1983, the court dismissed Hicks’s claims against Ryan and Ballen for failure to state a claim. The court granted Hicks 30 days to replead those claims. Any amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so Hicks would need to repeat any facts or claims he wanted to preserve.
Service on Marques and Malfetano
The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses for Officer J. Marques, Badge #154, and Officer Malfetano, Badge #170. Because Hicks was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve those defendants. The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after summonses are issued, and that Hicks should request more time if service is not completed within that period.
Disposition
The court dismissed the claims against Officers Ryan and Ballen for failure to state a claim, with 30 days’ leave to replead. It directed issuance of summonses and service on Officers Marques and Malfetano. Judge Nelson S. Roman also directed that an information package be mailed to Hicks and warned that Hicks must notify the court in writing of any address change. The opinion does not decide the underlying constitutional claims against Marques or Malfetano.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.