Auguste v. New York City Department of Homeless Services
Cherryl Auguste v. New York City Department of Homeless Services; Women In Need, Inc. (WIN); Dwayne Messam
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-07031
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cherryl Auguste v. New York City DHS, Judge Failla dismissed claims against DHS, added New York City, and denied appeal fee relief.
Cherryl Auguste’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services were dismissed; the City of New York was added as a defendant, while the claims against WIN and Dwayne Messam were not resolved in this order.
What happened
Cherryl Auguste v. New York City Department of Homeless Services; Women In Need, Inc. (WIN); and Dwayne Messam is a civil-rights case brought by Auguste without a lawyer under a federal law known as Section 1983. She alleged that the defendants violated her constitutional rights.
The court reviewed the complaint because Auguste was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance. It ruled that the New York City Department of Homeless Services could not be sued as a separate agency under the New York City Charter. The court therefore dismissed the claims against that agency and replaced it in the case with the City of New York, without limiting the City’s defenses.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the Clerk to add the City and terminate the Department of Homeless Services as a defendant. The court also terminated a motion because the defendants had already filed an answer, and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Auguste v. New York City Department of Homeless Services · No. 1:25-cv-07031
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 3, 2025
Background
Cherryl Auguste, appearing without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS), Women In Need, Inc. (WIN), and Dwayne Messam violated her constitutional rights. The court had previously allowed Auguste to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Screening of Claims Against DHS
Under the statute governing complaints filed by people proceeding without prepaying fees, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek monetary relief from an immune defendant, or otherwise fall within the statute’s dismissal requirements. The court also must dismiss claims when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court held that Auguste’s claims against DHS had to be dismissed because DHS lacks the capacity to be sued in its own name. The court explained that New York City’s municipal charter generally requires actions involving City agencies to be brought in the name of the City of New York, unless a law gives the agency authority to sue or be sued. The court found that the charter does not give DHS that capacity and dismissed Auguste’s claims against DHS under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Addition of the City of New York
Because Auguste was proceeding without a lawyer and clearly intended to assert claims against the City of New York, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against the City. It directed the Clerk of Court to amend the case caption by replacing DHS with the City of New York under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City may assert.
Other Orders and Disposition
The court did not issue a separate service order because counsel for the defendants had already appeared and the defendants had filed an answer. It directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 9 because the answer made that motion moot. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Auguste the ability to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla therefore dismissed Auguste’s claims against DHS, directed that the City of New York be added as a defendant and DHS terminated as a defendant, terminated the moot docket-entry-9 motion, and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.