Roebuck v. New York City Police Department
Cameron Roebuck v. New York City Police Department; John Doe #1, NYPD Officer; John Doe #2, NYPD Officer; John Doe #3, NYPD Officer; John Doe #4, NYPD Officer; John Doe #5, NYPD Officer; John Doe #6, NYPD Supervisor
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-07259
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Roebuck v. NYPD, Judge Subramanian dismissed claims against NYPD, substituted New York City, and ordered identification of unnamed officers and discovery.
Cameron Roebuck, the City of New York, the six unnamed NYPD defendants, and the New York City Law Department. The NYPD was removed as a defendant, the City was added, and the City and Law Department received identification, service, and discovery-related duties.
What happened
Cameron Roebuck, representing himself, brought a constitutional-rights lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law against the New York City Police Department and six unnamed police defendants. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court dismissed Roebuck’s claims against the NYPD because a New York City agency cannot be sued separately. It replaced the NYPD with the City of New York, requested that the City waive formal service of the lawsuit, and directed the City’s Law Department to identify the five unnamed officers and one unnamed supervisor.
After receiving that information, Roebuck must file an amended complaint within 30 days, and the court will then screen it. Judge Arun Subramanian also required the City to answer specified discovery requests within 120 days and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Roebuck v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:25-cv-07259
- Subramanian
- Sept. 9, 2025
Background
Cameron Roebuck, who is proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights. The defendants are the New York City Police Department and six unnamed defendants: five NYPD officers and one NYPD supervisor. The court had previously granted Roebuck permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
Rulings
The court dismissed Roebuck’s claims against the NYPD because a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued. Because the complaint clearly intended to assert claims against New York City, the court directed the Clerk of Court to replace the NYPD with the City of New York as a defendant. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City may assert.
The court requested that the City waive service of summons. It also directed the New York City Law Department to identify the names, badge numbers, and service addresses of the six John Doe defendants within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Roebuck must file an amended complaint naming those defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint after it is filed.
The court determined that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to the action. That rule requires responses to specified, court-ordered discovery requests in certain prisoner cases. The City must serve responses to those requests within 120 days of the order’s date and must quote each request verbatim in its responses.
Appeal status
The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Roebuck permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.