Jean v. HRA
Herby Jean v. HRA, Help Meyer's All Men Shelter, Chris Anderson, 25th Precinct, NYC Civil Complaint Review Board (CCRB), 52nd Precinct, Jerome Avenue All Men Shelter, Blake Avenue All Men Shelter
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-05401
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Herby Jean v. HRA, Judge Stanton dismissed Jean’s second amended complaint because it named no defendants and alleged no facts.
The order ends Herby Jean’s federal action based on his second amended complaint. The opinion also concerns the defendants named in the earlier pleadings, but the second amended complaint itself identified no defendants.
What happened
Herby Jean sued New York City entities, shelters, and Chris Anderson over several alleged incidents, including assaults and police conduct. The court had previously dismissed his complaints but allowed him to amend them.
Jean’s second amended complaint contained only one sentence: “Plaintiff Herby Jean seeks relief immediately.” It did not identify any defendants or describe any events or legal claims.
The court dismissed the complaint under the federal law governing screening of complaints filed without paying fees because it did not state a claim. The court also declined to allow another amendment and directed the clerk to enter judgment. Judge Stanton issued the order.
The detailed version
- Jean v. HRA · No. 1:24-cv-05401
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 5, 2025
Background
Herby Jean proceeded without a lawyer and under a fee-waiver order. He originally filed the action in the Eastern District of New York, which transferred it to the Southern District of New York. The court had dismissed his original complaint and first amended complaint, while allowing him to file another amendment.
The earlier pleadings named the Civilian Complaint Review Board, the Human Resources Administration, the New York Police Department’s 25th and 52nd Precincts, Chris Anderson, and three shelters. As described by the court, Jean alleged excessive force by unidentified officers, inadequate investigation by the complaint review board, misconduct by Anderson, assaults at two shelters, and improper placement in a holding cell. The court had identified problems including failure to name the City of New York for certain municipal-policy claims, failure to allege personal involvement by particular defendants, claims against entities or people who were not alleged to be government actors, and unrelated claims involving different defendants.
The court’s July 21, 2025 order explained that Jean could identify a municipal policy, custom, or practice and facts connecting it to a constitutional violation, or could sue individual government actors who were personally involved. It also explained that unidentified officers could be named as John Doe or Jane Doe with descriptions and facts allowing them to be identified.
Second Amended Complaint
Jean filed a second amended complaint on August 20, 2025. The filing had no caption, identified no defendants, and contained only the statement: “Plaintiff Herby Jean seeks relief immediately.” It alleged no facts.
Court’s Ruling
The court held that the second amended complaint did not state a claim on which relief could be granted. It dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the provision requiring dismissal of a fee-waived complaint that fails to state a claim. The court declined to give Jean another opportunity to amend because it determined that the defects could not be cured with further amendment. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.