Hicks v. Officer Jason Marques
Darnell R. Hicks v. Officer Jason Marques, Officer Ryan, Officer Ballen, Officer Brett J. Malfertano, Officer James Hazel, Officer Juan Encarnacion (Badge #188), Detective Chavez, Sergeant Kastanis, and The Village of Ossining Police Department
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:23-cv-01839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hicks v. Marques, Judge Seibel denied Hicks’s request to refer officers for criminal investigation, without deciding his allegations.
Darnell R. Hicks and the named police-officer and police-department defendants; the court denied Hicks’s request for a criminal-investigation referral and related relief.
What happened
In Hicks v. Marques, Darnell R. Hicks, representing himself, asked the court to refer several Ossining police officers to federal and state authorities for criminal investigation. He alleged that officers made false arrests, falsified reports, withheld or destroyed video evidence, and retaliated against him.
Hicks also asked the court to order preservation and production of video and other records, and to acknowledge that he had presented evidence supporting criminal investigation. The opinion does not decide whether his allegations were true.
Judge Cathy Seibel denied the application. She stated that the court generally does not make law-enforcement referrals for litigants and, even if it did, would not do so before the allegations had been adjudicated. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 184.
The detailed version
- Hicks v. Officer Jason Marques · No. 7:23-cv-01839
- Cathy Seibel
- Nov. 6, 2025
Background
Darnell R. Hicks, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an application asking the court to refer the named police officers—including Sergeant Kastanis—to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the New York Attorney General’s Office of Special Investigation. Hicks cited federal criminal statutes concerning deprivation of rights, conspiracy, falsifying records, and false declarations, as well as New York criminal statutes and the court’s inherent authority.
Hicks described three encounters from 2022 through 2024. He alleged that officers made false arrests without probable cause, prepared false reports, suppressed or withheld video evidence, and retaliated against him for protected speech and recording police conduct. He also alleged that Sergeant Kastanis approved or later ratified the officers’ actions. These allegations were presented by Hicks; the order did not adjudicate them.
Relief Requested
Hicks asked the court to refer the officers for criminal investigation and prosecution, order the preservation and production of remaining body-camera, dispatch, and station-surveillance footage, and acknowledge that he had presented evidence warranting prosecutorial review.
Ruling
Judge Cathy Seibel denied the application. The court stated that it generally does not make referrals to law enforcement on behalf of litigants. It further stated that, even if it did make such a referral, it would not do so before there had been an adjudication of Hicks’s allegations. The court noted that Hicks could bring his allegations to the attention of the United States Attorney, the Attorney General, or another agency himself. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 184. The order also noted that only Officer Encarnacion was a defendant in No. 23-CV-1839.
Classification Note
This is a procedural order because the court ruled on an ancillary request for a law-enforcement referral and did not decide the merits of Hicks’s allegations about the officers’ conduct.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.