Spann v. Peekskill Police

Background

Madison R. Spann, who is detained at the Westchester County Jail and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the defendants used excessive force against him. The complaint names “Peekskill Police” and two unidentified defendants, each described as a Peekskill police officer. The court had previously granted Spann permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Screening and claims against the police department

Because Spann was proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court reviewed the complaint under the federal screening statutes. Those statutes require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, 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 construed “Peekskill Police” to mean the City of Peekskill Police Department. It held that the department was not a suable entity because the City Charter did not authorize it to sue or be sued in its own name. The court therefore dismissed Spann’s claims against the Peekskill Police Department.

Because Spann’s complaint showed a clear intention to assert claims against the City of Peekskill, the court directed the Clerk of Court to amend the case caption and replace “Peekskill Police” with the City of Peekskill. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City may assert.

Service on the City

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for the City, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service process form, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the City. The order explains that a plaintiff permitted to proceed without prepaying fees may rely on the court and the Marshals Service to carry out service.

If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the summons is issued, Spann must request additional time. The order also requires Spann to notify the court in writing if his address changes and states that the action may be dismissed if he does not do so.

Identifying the unidentified officers

Under the procedure described in Valentin v. Dinkins, a self-represented litigant may receive the district court’s assistance in identifying an unknown defendant. The court found that Spann had provided enough information for the City of Peekskill to identify the two officers who allegedly arrested him in April 2025.

The court ordered the Corporation Counsel for the City of Peekskill to determine each officer’s identity, badge number, and address for service, and to provide that information to Spann and the court within 60 days of the order. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Spann must file an amended complaint naming the officers. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will then screen the amended complaint and, if needed, arrange for service on the newly identified defendants.

Disposition

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed Spann’s claims against the Peekskill Police Department. The Clerk of Court was directed to add the City of Peekskill as a defendant, issue and arrange service of a summons for the City, and begin the process for identifying the two John Doe officers. The order did not decide the merits of Spann’s excessive-force allegations.