Ingram v. NYPD 10th Precinct Officer Waters

Background

Bonnie Ingram brought the case under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction, alleging that the defendants violated her constitutional rights. She was proceeding without a lawyer. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees.

Because Ingram was proceeding without paying fees, the court was required to screen her complaint and dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that it would interpret a self-represented litigant’s filings generously, but that the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief.

Claims Against NYPD Entities

The court dismissed Ingram’s claims against the New York Police Department, the NYPD Traffic Department, and the NYPD Internal Affairs Office. It held that agencies of the City of New York are not separate entities that can be sued, citing the New York City Charter and decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York. The conclusion cites 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which concerns dismissal for failure to state a claim during fee-waiver screening.

Service of Process

Because Ingram had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to assist with serving the City of New York and 10th Precinct Officer Waters. The Clerk was instructed to issue summonses, complete a separate U.S. Marshals Service process form for each defendant, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.

The court stated that service should be completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed by then, Ingram should request an extension of time. The court also noted that Ingram’s allegations concerned conduct by multiple traffic agents and that, if she later learns the names of particular individuals involved, it would consider allowing her to file an amended complaint.

Requests for Expedited Relief

Ingram submitted letters asking the court to expedite the case and hold an emergency hearing, stating that she had become homeless. The court treated those letters as requests for a preliminary injunction, meaning an urgent temporary court order issued before the case is fully resolved.

The court explained that this relief requires a showing of likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. Based on the complaint and later filings, the court found that Ingram had not shown either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions with the required balance of hardships. It therefore denied the requests for preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice. The court nevertheless stated that it would take available steps to expedite service.

Disposition

The court dismissed Ingram’s claims against the NYPD, the NYPD Traffic Department, and the NYPD Internal Affairs Office. It denied without prejudice the requests for expedited relief and an emergency hearing. It ordered the issuance of summonses and service on the City of New York and 10th Precinct Officer Waters. Judge Katherine Polk Failla also directed the Clerk to mail Ingram an information package.