Samaroo v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Rickford Samaroo, who is representing himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional or federal rights by officials acting under state law. He named the New York City Housing Authority and the New York City Police Department as defendants. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Samaroo was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is legally immune. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the dispute. The court said it would read Samaroo’s self-represented complaint liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations.

Claims Against the Police Department

The court dismissed Samaroo’s claims against the New York City Police Department because a New York City agency generally is not an entity that can be sued. Because Samaroo clearly intended to assert claims against the City of New York, the court construed the complaint as making those claims against the City and directed the Clerk of Court to replace the Police Department with the City as a defendant under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City may assert.

Adding Individual Officers

Samaroo did not list NYPD Lieutenant Isaac, Sergeant Yang, and Officers Fucci and Llanos in the complaint’s caption. But the complaint provided their names and badge numbers and made allegations against them. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to add them as defendants under Rule 21. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses those individuals may assert.

Service of the Defendants

The court requested that the City of New York, Lieutenant Isaac, Sergeant Yang, Officer Fucci, and Officer Llanos waive service of summons. Because Samaroo was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for the New York City Housing Authority, prepare the required service form, and deliver the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on the Housing Authority. The court extended the time for service until 90 days after any summonses are issued. It also directed Samaroo to notify the court in writing if his address changes.

Conclusion and Appeal

The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Police Department, added the City of New York and the four named officers as defendants, and directed service-related steps for the defendants. The order did not decide the merits of Samaroo’s underlying civil-rights allegations. Judge Margaret M. Garnett certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.