Etuk v. New York Department of Homeless Services
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-04967
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Etuk v. New York City Department of Homeless Services, Judge Abrams dismissed claims against DHS and ordered service on three newly identified officers.
The ruling dismisses Akaniyene William Etuk’s claims against DHS and directs the Marshals Service to serve Officers Autumn Burgess, Emrah Bektesevic, and Malcolm Wise. It also affects Etuk’s ability to appeal without prepaying fees. The order does not state a disposition for the other named defendants.
What happened
Akaniyene William Etuk, representing himself, sued the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS), private organizations, and DHS officers. The court understood his second amended complaint to raise claims under a federal civil-rights law and state law. The court had previously dismissed claims against DHS and had helped identify three additional officers.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and service forms for Officers Autumn Burgess, Emrah Bektesevic, and Malcolm Wise. The United States Marshals Service must serve those officers because Etuk was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance. Etuk must ask for more time if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued.
Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed Etuk’s claims against DHS and directed service on Burgess, Bektesevic, and Wise. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The opinion does not state a ruling here on claims against the other named defendants.
The detailed version
- Etuk v. New York Department of Homeless Services · No. 1:24-cv-04967
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 24, 2024
Background
Akaniyene William Etuk, who is representing himself, brought the action under federal-question jurisdiction and seeks damages, an injunction, and a declaration of his rights. The court construed his second amended complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The defendants named in that pleading are the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS), Bronxworks, A&H Security Services, and DHS Officers Albert Garcia, Spyridon, Autumn Burgess, Emrah Bektesevic, and Malcolm Wise.
Etuk had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In an earlier order, the court dismissed his claims against DHS, directed service on certain defendants, and ordered the City’s Corporation Counsel to identify additional DHS officers involved in the events described in the complaint. Corporation Counsel identified Burgess, Bektesevic, and Wise. The court then directed Etuk to file a second amended complaint naming those officers. His second amended complaint named the three officers but no longer named the City of New York.
Service on Newly Identified Defendants
Because Etuk was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the United States Marshals Service to serve process. The Clerk of Court was directed to prepare service forms and summonses for Burgess, Bektesevic, and Wise and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service so it could serve the summonses and second amended complaint.
The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses issue. If service is not completed within that period, Etuk should request an extension. The court also directed Etuk to notify it in writing of any address change and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Disposition
For the reasons given in the court’s August 23, 2024 order, the court again dismissed Etuk’s claims against DHS. It directed service on Burgess, Bektesevic, and Wise and ordered the Clerk to send the relevant documents to the Marshals Service and a copy of the order and second amended complaint to the City’s Corporation Counsel. The court did not state a disposition in this order for the claims against Bronxworks, A&H Security Services, Garcia, or Spyridon.
The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Etuk permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.