Owens v. Police Department of New York City

Background

David S. Owens, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The defendants were captioned as the Police Department of New York City and a police officer identified as John Doe. The court had previously granted Owens permission to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset, although the opinion notes that prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee over time.

Screening Standard

The court screened the complaint under federal laws requiring review of prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or employees. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also stated that it must read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally, while still requiring enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Police Department of New York City

The court dismissed Owens’s claims against the Police Department of New York City under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It held that an agency of the City of New York is not a separate entity that can be sued. Because the complaint clearly intended to assert claims against New York City, the court construed it as asserting claims against the City and directed the Clerk of Court to replace the Police Department with the City of New York in the caption. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City might assert.

Service on the City

Because Owens had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue a summons, complete a U.S. Marshals Service process form, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service for service on the City. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. It also ordered Owens to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

John Doe Officer

The court found that Owens had provided enough information for the New York City Police Department to identify the officer who arrested him on November 2, 2016. Under the rule allowing assistance in identifying an unknown defendant, the court ordered the New York City Law Department to determine the officer’s identity, badge number, and service address within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Owens must file an amended complaint naming the officer. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint and decide whether further service instructions are needed.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against the Police Department of New York City, directed that the City of New York be added as a defendant, and ordered steps for serving the City and identifying the John Doe officer. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. This was a screening and service order; the opinion did not decide the underlying constitutional claims on their merits.