Hicks v. Hazel
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:25-cv-02178
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Hicks v. Hazel, Judge Karas dismissed claims against the police department and directed service on the remaining defendants.
Darnell R. Hicks’s claims against the Ossining Police Department were dismissed because the department cannot be sued in its own name. Claims against the Village of Ossining, Officer James Hazel, and Officer Ballen remained subject to service, and the U.S. Marshals Service was directed to serve them.
What happened
In Hicks v. Hazel, Darnell R. Hicks, who is representing himself, claimed that James Hazel, Ballen, the Ossining Police Department, and the Village of Ossining violated his constitutional rights. The court treated the complaint as raising federal claims under a civil-rights law and related state-law claims.
The court dismissed the claims against the Ossining Police Department because, under New York law and the Village of Ossining Charter, the department cannot be sued in its own name. The court said it would treat allegations against the department as claims against the Village of Ossining. It directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the Village, Hazel, and Ballen.
Judge Karas also stated that an appeal from the order would not be considered filed without paying fees because it would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether Hicks’s claims against the remaining defendants would succeed.
The detailed version
- Hicks v. Hazel · No. 7:25-cv-02178
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 7, 2025
Background
Darnell R. Hicks, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that Officer James Hazel, Officer Ballen, the Ossining Police Department, and the Village of Ossining violated his federal constitutional rights. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law claims. Hicks had already been permitted to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Screening of the Police Department Claims
Because Hicks was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court dismissed Hicks’s claims against the Ossining Police Department for failure to state a claim because the department lacks the legal capacity to be sued in its own name. The court relied on New York law, which generally does not give municipal departments a separate legal identity, and on the Village of Ossining Charter, which gives the Village—not the Police Department—the right to sue and be sued.
Because Hicks was representing himself, the court construed allegations against the Ossining Police Department as allegations against the Village of Ossining, which was already named as a defendant.
Service on Remaining Defendants
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the required U.S. Marshals Service paperwork for the Village of Ossining, Officer James Hazel, and Officer Ballen. The Marshals Service was directed to receive the necessary documents and serve those defendants. The court stated that if the complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Hicks should request more time. It also instructed Hicks to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Disposition
The court dismissed Hicks’s claims against the Ossining Police Department. It directed service on the Village of Ossining, Hazel, and Ballen, and directed that an information package be mailed to Hicks. Judge Kenneth M. Karas certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not resolve the merits of the claims against the remaining defendants.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.