Koulibaly v. City of New York

Nature of the Order

This was a screening and case-management order, not a decision on whether Koulibaly’s underlying constitutional or state-law allegations were true. Koulibaly appeared without a lawyer and sought damages and injunctive relief. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims for violations of federal rights by state or local actors, and under state law.

Claims Against the Department of Correction and 40th Precinct

The court dismissed Koulibaly’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Police Department’s 40th Precinct for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Applying New York law, the court explained that City agencies generally cannot be sued in their own names unless the law provides otherwise. It concluded that the Department of Correction is a City agency and that the 40th Precinct is a subdivision of the Police Department, so neither has the capacity to be sued separately. The court directed that these entities be removed from the case caption and treated the claims concerning them as claims against the City of New York, which Koulibaly also named as a defendant.

Defendants Added Under Rule 21

The court added Correction Officers Lewis and Ramones under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. Although Koulibaly did not list them in the caption, the court found that his allegations indicated that he intended to sue them. The court also added unidentified defendants in four groups: the police officers who arrested Koulibaly in or around June 2023 and initiated criminal proceedings that ended with dismissal of the related charges; Health and Hospitals employees who evaluated his injured finger and decided whether and when to provide treatment while he was in Department of Correction custody; correction officers assigned to the Rose M. Singer Enhanced Supervised Housing facility on February 22, 2025, who were recorded as involved in a physical altercation with him; and the correction officer on duty in his housing-unit tier on April 6, 2025, who allegedly allowed all cells on that tier to be opened at the same time. The additions were stated to be without prejudice to defenses those defendants may later assert.

Identification and Amendment Process

The court directed the City’s Corporation Counsel and Health and Hospitals’ counsel to identify the unnamed defendants and provide badge numbers and service addresses when appropriate within 60 days of the order. After receiving that information, Koulibaly must file an amended complaint naming the identified individuals within 30 days. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and the court will screen it after filing.

Service and Discovery

The court requested that the City of New York and Officers Lewis and Ramones waive service of summonses. Because Koulibaly was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court directed the United States Marshals Service to serve NYC Health + Hospitals. The court stated that service should occur within 90 days after the summons for Health and Hospitals is issued, subject to a requested extension if necessary.

The court also directed the City and Officers Lewis and Ramones to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2 within 120 days. That rule requires specified defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to court-ordered interrogatories and document requests.

Other Dispositions

The court directed the Clerk of Court to send Koulibaly an information package and an amended-complaint form. It also stated that Koulibaly must notify the court of any address change. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.