Hyatt v. The City of New York
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-04585
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hyatt v. City of New York, Judge Ho dismissed claims against the New York City Police Department because it cannot be sued separately from the city.
Shane Hyatt’s claims against the New York City Police Department were dismissed. The order also concerns the City of New York and the named police employees by requesting that they waive service; the opinion does not resolve the underlying allegations against them.
What happened
In Hyatt v. The City of New York, Shane Hyatt, who is incarcerated and represents himself, sued the city, the New York City Police Department, and several police employees under a federal civil-rights law and state law. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights.
Judge Ho ruled that the Police Department is a city agency that cannot be sued as a separate entity. The court therefore dismissed Hyatt’s claims against the Police Department for failing to state a legally valid claim, while treating allegations against the department as allegations against the City of New York.
Judge Ho also requested that the City and the individual officers waive formal service of the lawsuit. The court denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Hyatt v. The City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-04585
- Ho
- June 18, 2025
Background
Shane Hyatt, who is incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials. He also asserted state-law claims against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and identified police employees.
The court had previously granted Hyatt permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion notes that prisoners still must pay the full filing fee over time, even when granted that permission.
Screening Standard
The court explained that it must dismiss all or part of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Because Hyatt was proceeding without a lawyer, the court was required to read his allegations generously and interpret them to present the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the complaint.
Ruling on the Police Department
The court held that the New York City Police Department is an agency of the City of New York and is not a separate entity that can be sued. The court therefore dismissed Hyatt’s claims against the Police Department for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because Hyatt was proceeding without a lawyer, the court construed allegations directed at the Police Department as allegations against the City of New York, which was also named as a defendant.
Service and Appeal
The court requested that the City of New York and the named police employees waive service of summons. It directed the Clerk of Court to notify the Police Department and the City Law Department and to mail Hyatt an information package.
Judge Dale E. Ho certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not decide the merits of Hyatt’s underlying constitutional or state-law allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.