Sales v. City of New York, New York

Background

LaVien Sales filed this action without a lawyer. He asserted violations of federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and also asserted state-law claims. He sought damages and injunctive relief. The defendants named in the caption were the City of New York, New York; “41 Police Department,” which the court understood to mean the New York City Police Department’s 41st Precinct; and unidentified “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” New York City Police Department officers. Sales sued the individual officers in both their official and individual capacities.

The court had previously allowed Sales to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was proceeding without prepayment, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of an action, or part of an action, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Rulings on the Defendants

The court dismissed Sales’s claims against the 41st Precinct. It held that the Precinct, as a subsidiary of the New York City Police Department and an agency of the City, is not an entity that can be sued. The court described the claims as duplicative of Sales’s claims against the City of New York and as failing to state a claim for relief.

The court also dismissed Sales’s § 1983 claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities. It explained that an official-capacity claim against a municipal officer is treated as a claim against the municipality itself, making those claims duplicative of the claims against the City and insufficient under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion does not say that the individual-capacity claims were dismissed.

Identification of Unnamed Officers and Service

The court found that Sales had provided enough information for the New York City Police Department to identify the unnamed officers who allegedly arrested and charged him in connection with a domestic dispute with his girlfriend and the officers who allegedly arrested and charged him in connection with a store incident in or around March 2022.

Under the rule requiring court assistance in identifying unnamed defendants, the court directed the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York to determine the officers’ full identities and badge numbers and provide that information to Sales and the court within 60 days of the order. Sales must file an amended complaint naming the identified individuals and providing their badge numbers within 30 days after receiving the information. 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 named defendants waive service.

The court requested that the City of New York waive service of a summons and directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Police Department and the New York City Law Department electronically.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed Sales’s claims against the 41st Precinct and his § 1983 claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities. The order does not specify whether those dismissals were with or without prejudice. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order otherwise directed the service-waiver and defendant-identification steps described above.