Strachn v. NYPD

Background

Kawahn Strachn filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The defendants named in the complaint were the New York City Police Department (NYPD), NYPD Officer Gomez, Lieutenant Edmonds, and Frias Railyng. The court had previously granted Strachn permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Screening and NYPD Claim

Because Strachn was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said that it must read a filing by a person without a lawyer liberally.

The court held that the NYPD, as an agency of the City of New York, cannot be sued in the agency’s own name. The court therefore dismissed Strachn’s claims against the NYPD. Because the complaint showed a clear intention to assert claims against New York City, the court construed it as asserting claims against the City and directed the clerk to amend the caption to replace the NYPD with the City of New York. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City might assert.

Service of Process

The court explained that a plaintiff who has permission to proceed without prepaying fees may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. It extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. The court stated that, if service was not completed within that period, Strachn should request an extension.

The clerk was directed to prepare U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms for the City of New York, Officer Gomez, Frias Railyng, and Lieutenant Edmonds; issue summonses; and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve those defendants. Strachn was also required to notify the court in writing if his address changed.

Disposition

The court dismissed Strachn’s claims against the NYPD, directed the clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant, and ordered the documents necessary for service on the City, Gomez, Railyng, and Edmonds. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide whether Strachn’s underlying constitutional-rights allegations were valid.