Balasinkam v. New York City Police Department
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:25-cv-01667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Balasinkam v. New York City Police Department, Judge Ramos dismissed claims against named entities, substituted the City and H+H, and ordered service and identification of individuals.
The order affects Sash Balasinkam, the City of New York, NYC Health + Hospitals, and the unidentified police officers, emergency medical technicians, and hospital staff whom Balasinkam may later name. It removes the New York City Police Department, “New York Emergency Medical Technicians,” and Lincoln Hospital as separately named defendants and substitutes the City and H+H.
What happened
In Balasinkam v. New York City Police Department, Sash Balasinkam alleged that police officers, emergency medical technicians, and hospital staff falsely arrested him, hospitalized him involuntarily, and medicated him involuntarily. He is representing himself and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Police Department, “New York Emergency Medical Technicians,” and Lincoln Hospital because those entities could not be sued in the form named. It replaced them with the City of New York and NYC Health + Hospitals, ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve those defendants, and required their lawyers to help identify the individual defendants.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Balasinkam’s request to file a second amended complaint naming the individuals, but the court did not decide whether his underlying constitutional or state-law claims were valid. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Balasinkam v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:25-cv-01667
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Sash Balasinkam, who is representing himself, alleged that defendants violated his rights through a false arrest, involuntary hospitalization, and involuntary medication. The court understood the amended complaint to assert constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims. The court had already allowed Balasinkam to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
Screening and named defendants
Because Balasinkam was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court dismissed Balasinkam’s claims against the New York City Police Department because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued separately from the City. It also dismissed claims against “New York Emergency Medical Technicians” because the opinion states that no entity by that name appeared to exist and because any intended City divisions could not be sued separately from the City. The court directed the clerk to replace those defendants with the City of New York. That replacement was without prejudice to defenses the City may later assert.
The court dismissed the claims against Lincoln Hospital because facilities operated by NYC Health + Hospitals do not have separate capacity to be sued under the authorities discussed in the opinion. It construed those claims as claims against NYC Health + Hospitals, or H+H, and directed the clerk to replace Lincoln Hospital with H+H. That replacement was without prejudice to defenses H+H may later assert.
Service and identification of individual defendants
The court directed the clerk to issue summonses and prepare the required forms so the U.S. Marshals Service could serve the City of New York and H+H. The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued, unless Balasinkam requests more time.
Balasinkam alleged that unidentified police officers, emergency medical technicians, and Lincoln Hospital staff violated his rights. The court ordered the New York City Law Department and H+H’s counsel to identify those individuals, including badge numbers when applicable, and provide their service addresses to Balasinkam and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Balasinkam must file a second amended complaint naming the individuals. The court stated that the second amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed the claims against the New York City Police Department, “New York Emergency Medical Technicians,” and Lincoln Hospital; added the City of New York and H+H as defendants; directed service on those entities; and ordered assistance in identifying individual defendants. The court granted Balasinkam’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and directed him to file a second amended complaint after receiving the identifying information. The order did not decide the merits of the alleged false arrest, involuntary hospitalization, involuntary medication, or state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.