Otero v. P.S.A. 4 Precinct Whole Mayor and All Staff in Total
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-06084
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Michael Otero v. P.S.A. 4 Precinct, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint, giving Otero 30 days to amend because he alleged no claim of his own.
Otero’s complaint was dismissed because it did not assert a claim of his own, but he was given 30 days to amend. Claims concerning Santiago’s truck that Otero may have been bringing for Santiago were dismissed without prejudice to Santiago bringing them himself. The opinion does not decide whether the truck was lawfully confiscated.
What happened
In Michael Otero v. P.S.A. 4 Precinct Whole Mayor and All Staff in Total, Michael Otero, representing himself, challenged the confiscation of Sammy Santiago’s truck after Otero’s arrest by New York City police officers. Otero’s complaint indicated that Santiago owned the truck and was trying to recover it.
The court ruled that Otero could not represent Santiago because people representing themselves may litigate only their own legal interests. It dismissed claims Otero was trying to bring for Santiago without prejudice to Santiago bringing those claims himself, and dismissed Otero’s complaint because it did not assert a claim belonging to Otero.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Otero 30 days to file an amended complaint describing his own claims. The court also denied him permission to appeal without paying fees and directed the clerk to keep the case open until judgment is entered.
The detailed version
- Otero v. P.S.A. 4 Precinct Whole Mayor and All Staff in Total · No. 1:24-cv-06084
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 14, 2025
Background
Michael Otero, who was representing himself, filed an action concerning the alleged confiscation of Sammy Santiago’s truck during Otero’s arrest by New York City police officers. According to the complaint, Otero was arrested on May 26, 2024, and officers confiscated a pickup truck that Santiago had lent him. Otero stated that Santiago was not arrested or ticketed and was having trouble getting the truck released.
The court had previously dismissed Santiago from the action after he failed to submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees or to pay the required fees. The court later granted Otero permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without payment of fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court must also read a self-represented person’s filing liberally, meaning it must interpret the filing to raise the strongest claims reasonably suggested by its allegations.
The court concluded that the action concerned Santiago’s truck and that Otero appeared to be trying to help Santiago recover his property. A person representing himself, however, cannot litigate another person’s legal claims. Because Otero did not assert a claim belonging to him, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Claims Otero might have been attempting to bring for Santiago were dismissed without prejudice to Santiago asserting those claims on his own behalf.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint and granted Otero 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint describing his own claims. If Otero did not amend within that period, the court stated that it would direct the clerk to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Otero permission to appeal without paying fees. The clerk was directed to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.