Cohen v. N.Y.P.D.-HQ Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Division

Background

Peggy Cohen appeared without a lawyer and invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Cohen sought $10 million from the “NYPD - HQ Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Division” and asked the court to stop the use of what she described as high-technology remote weapons.

Cohen alleged that a private corporation was experimenting on or torturing her electronically, that remote weapons affected her vision and body, and that vibrations and sounds in her home released toxic dust and chemicals into her food and water. She also alleged that, after she called the police for help, officers placed small handcuffs on her, sprained her left shoulder, harassed her, and pushed her to the ground after she showed an email to New York State Governor Cuomo.

Screening of the claims

Because Cohen was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said it would read her self-represented complaint liberally and consider the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.

The court dismissed Cohen’s claim that a private corporation was deploying remote weapons against her. It held that the claim was factually irrational and had no legal theory supporting it. The court directed Cohen not to include that claim in any amended complaint. The court also noted that Cohen had filed a substantially similar action in a prior related proceeding, which had been dismissed as frivolous. It warned that continuing to assert such claims could lead to an order barring her from filing new actions without preapproval while proceeding without prepaying fees.

Claims involving the police department and officers

The court held that the New York Police Department, as a city agency, could not be sued in its own name. Any claim intended to target the department had to be brought against the City of New York instead.

The court explained that a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a municipality requires allegations that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. Cohen’s allegations that one or more officers used excessive force did not show that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged violation. The complaint therefore failed to state a § 1983 claim against the City of New York.

The court nevertheless granted Cohen leave to amend claims that individual police officers personally used excessive force against her. The amended complaint had to identify the involved defendants, or use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if their names were unknown, and provide the relevant facts, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than add to it.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon granted Cohen 60 days to file an amended complaint complying with the order. No summons would issue at that time. If Cohen failed to amend within the allowed period without showing good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.