Drayton v. City of New York

Background

Frank S. Drayton, appearing without a lawyer, brought an action seeking damages. The complaint named the City of New York; NYPD Officer Joel Chisholm; “14th Precinct MTS,” which the court understood to refer to the NYPD’s Midtown South Precinct; unidentified officers; NYPD Sergeant Courtney Hamlin; unidentified responding officers; and an unidentified “Transporting Latino Responding Officer.”

The court understood the complaint to assert federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims. The unidentified defendants appeared to include NYPD members involved in Drayton’s pursuit, arrest, detention, transport, and criminal charging arising from events on February 19, 2025, at 41st Street and 9th Avenue in New York, New York.

The court had previously allowed Drayton to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because the complaint appeared to have been submitted while Drayton was in custody, the court treated him as a prisoner for purposes of the statutory screening requirements, even though the opinion stated that he was likely not currently in custody.

Screening standard

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court must screen a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or government officer. The court 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. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer generously, the complaint still must provide enough factual detail to make entitlement to relief plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Dismissal of the precinct claims

The court dismissed Drayton’s claims against “14th Precinct MTS.” It held that an NYPD precinct is a subdivision of a city agency and is not a separate entity that can be sued. The dismissal was for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion does not state that the court dismissed Drayton’s claims against the City, Chisholm, Hamlin, or the unidentified defendants at this stage.

Service and identification of defendants

The court directed the Clerk to notify the NYPD and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that the City, Officer Chisholm, and Sergeant Hamlin waive service of summonses. The court also directed the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York to determine the full identities and badge numbers of the unidentified defendants and provide that information to Drayton and the court within 60 days of the order.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Drayton must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified individuals and providing their badge numbers. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint and may later request that the newly identified defendants waive service.

Other ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state whether the court granted or denied the underlying damages claims on their merits.