Jr. v. City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-07416
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lurch v. City of New York, Judge Rochon ordered identification of two unnamed officers and required an amended complaint before screening.
Robert D. Lurch Jr.; the City of New York; Police Officer Shield #9976; the unidentified partner officer; and the New York City Police and Law Departments.
What happened
Robert D. Lurch Jr. v. City of New York concerns a lawsuit by a self-represented plaintiff under a federal civil-rights law. Lurch alleges that the defendants arrested him and took him to a psychiatric hospital without probable cause. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying court fees upfront.
The court directed the New York City Law Department to identify Police Officer Shield #9976 and the officer who partnered with that officer on May 6, 2025. The Law Department must also provide addresses where the officers can be served. The City of New York was asked to accept service of the lawsuit without requiring formal delivery of a summons.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the Law Department to provide the information within 60 days. Lurch must file an amended complaint naming the identified defendants within 30 days after receiving the information; that complaint will replace the original one. The court will screen the amended complaint afterward.
The detailed version
- Jr. v. City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-07416
- Rochon
- Oct. 3, 2025
Background
Robert D. Lurch Jr. is proceeding without a lawyer and brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. He alleges that the defendants arrested him and brought him to a psychiatric hospital without probable cause. An earlier order allowed him to proceed without paying court fees upfront.
The complaint names the City of New York, Police Officer Shield #9976, and the partner of that officer, but does not provide the two officers’ names. The opinion states that the complaint gives enough information for the New York City Police Department to identify Officer Shield #9976 and the partner who was working with that officer on May 6, 2025.
Court’s Directions
The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Police Department and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that the City of New York accept service of the summons without requiring formal service.
The court also issued an identification order under Valentin v. Dinkins, which allows a self-represented litigant to receive the court’s help identifying a defendant. The New York City Law Department, described in the opinion as the NYPD’s attorney and agent, must determine the identities and badge numbers of the two officers and the addresses where they may be served. It must provide that information to Lurch and the court within 60 days after October 3, 2025.
Within 30 days after receiving the information, Lurch must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and, if needed, issue another order asking the newly identified defendants to accept service.
Disposition and Classification
The order does not decide whether Lurch’s arrest or transfer to the psychiatric hospital violated his rights. It addresses service and identification of defendants and sets requirements for a future amended complaint. The Clerk was also directed to mail Lurch an information package.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.