Ahmad v. The City of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-04166
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Ahmad v. City of New York, Judge Engelmayer dismissed claims against the NYPD and unidentified defendants while directing service on other defendants.
Rasheed Ahmad; the NYPD; the John and Jane Doe defendants; the City of New York; the named individual defendants; and Paradise Towing and Recovery LLC.
What happened
Ahmad v. The City of New York concerns Rasheed Ahmad’s lawsuit, filed without a lawyer, alleging injuries from a February 22, 2024 traffic stop involving New York City police officers.
The court screened Ahmad’s complaint after allowing him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. It ruled that the NYPD cannot be sued under New York law and that Ahmad had not provided enough information to identify the John and Jane Doe defendants.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed the claims against the NYPD and the Doe defendants; the dismissal of the Doe claims was without prejudice to asserting them with more specific information in an amended complaint. The court also requested service waivers from the City and named officers and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Paradise Towing and Recovery LLC.
The detailed version
- Ahmad v. The City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-04166
- Paul Engelmayer
- June 4, 2025
Background
Rasheed Ahmad, proceeding without a lawyer, brought the action based on alleged injuries arising from a February 22, 2024 traffic stop by New York City Police Department officers. The defendants identified in the opinion include the City of New York, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), several named individuals, John and Jane Doe defendants, and Paradise Towing and Recovery LLC. The court had granted Ahmad permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
Screening standard
Because Ahmad was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court stated that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it must read filings by people without lawyers generously, but those filings still must provide the short and plain statement required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
Claims against the NYPD
The court dismissed Ahmad’s claims against the NYPD. It explained that New York law determines whether an entity can be sued in federal court and that, under the New York City Charter, the NYPD cannot sue or be sued in its own name. The court therefore concluded that the NYPD was not a proper defendant.
Claims against John and Jane Doe defendants
Ahmad named John Doe and Jane Doe defendants 1 through 5 but did not provide enough information for the NYPD to identify them. The court dismissed the claims against those defendants without prejudice to Ahmad’s reasserting them with greater specificity in an amended complaint consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
Service and remaining defendants
The court requested that the City of New York and Barbara K. Ordonaz, Gregory Flores, Dylon S. Signore, Prince Philip, and Efrain Morales waive service of summons. Because Ahmad was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Paradise Towing and Recovery LLC and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for service. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons issues and stated that Ahmad should request more time if service is not completed within that period.
Disposition
The court dismissed Ahmad’s claims against the NYPD and John and Jane Doe defendants. It also issued directions concerning service on Paradise Towing and Recovery LLC and requested service waivers from the City and the named individuals.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.