Etuk v. New York Police Department
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-04957
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Etuk v. New York Police Department, Judge Failla ordered service of the amended complaint and issued related instructions.
Akaniyene William Etuk, the defendants designated for service, the Clerk of Court, the United States Marshals Service, and the City of New York are affected because the order establishes how the Third Amended Complaint will be served and requires related filings and updates.
What happened
In Etuk v. New York Police Department, Akaniyene William Etuk, who is representing himself, filed a third amended complaint seeking damages, court orders, and a declaration based on events on July 6, 2023. The court understood the complaint to raise claims under a federal civil-rights law and state law.
The court had previously allowed Etuk to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. It directed the Clerk of Court and the United States Marshals Service to prepare and carry out service on several defendants, including the New York City Police Department, Jacobi Medical Center, DHS Officer Harvey, and multiple current and former NYPD officers. Lawyers had already appeared for the City of New York, BronxWorks, and Miss Genesis, so Marshals Service service was not required for them.
Judge Katherine Failla ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and service paperwork, mail the order and complaint to the New York City Law Department, and send Etuk an information package. The order also required Etuk to notify the court of any address change and required New York City to update the court about Officer Sergio Nunez-Lopez’s military-leave status by March 28, 2025. The order did not decide whether Etuk’s claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Etuk v. New York Police Department · No. 1:24-cv-04957
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 4, 2025
Background
Akaniyene William Etuk, appearing without a lawyer, filed a Third Amended Complaint. The court treated that complaint as the operative pleading—the version controlling the case. Etuk seeks damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief based on events occurring on July 6, 2023. The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.
The defendants named in the complaint include the New York City Police Department; Jacobi Medical Center; BronxWorks; DHS Officer Harvey; Miss Genesis; former NYPD Officers Nicholas Konner, Patrick Sayegh, and Andrew Witkowski; current NYPD Officers Junior Munoz, Aramis Ramos, Ryan Neff, Richard Santiago, Steven Wan, and Sergio Nunez-Lopez; and NYPD John Doe Officers 1–10.
The court had previously allowed Etuk to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because of that status, federal law allows him to rely on assistance from the court and the United States Marshals Service to serve the complaint and summonses.
Court’s Action
The court directed service of the Third Amended Complaint on the New York City Police Department, Jacobi Medical Center, DHS Officer Harvey, former NYPD Officers Konner, Sayegh, and Witkowski, NYPD Officers Munoz, Ramos, Neff, Santiago, Wan, and Nunez-Lopez. The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete service forms with the available addresses, and provide the required documents to the Marshals Service.
The court stated that, if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses issue, Etuk should ask for more time. It also required Etuk to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the case may be dismissed if he does not do so. The court noted that lawyers for the City of New York, BronxWorks, and Miss Genesis had appeared, so the Marshals Service did not need to serve those parties.
The court additionally directed the Clerk to mail the order and complaint to the New York City Law Department and to send Etuk an information package. At the City’s request, it required the City to update the court about Officer Nunez-Lopez’s military-leave status by March 28, 2025.
Result and Significance
Judge Katherine Polk Failla’s order concerned service and case administration. It did not rule on the merits of Etuk’s federal or state-law claims, and it did not dismiss or resolve the action.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.