McFadden v. City of New York

Background

Denver McFadden brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional-rights violations by government officials, against the City of New York, New York City Health + Hospitals, named New York City police officers, an unidentified doctor, and two unidentified correction officers. McFadden alleged that several police officers arrested and injured him; that he was taken to Bellevue Hospital, where a doctor declared him “ok” without examining him; that he was denied medication for 72 hours; and that he was later robbed and beaten at a facility on Rikers Island. He also alleged that intake officers did nothing after he reported the incident.

The court had previously dismissed some of McFadden’s claims without prejudice, meaning he could potentially bring them again. Because McFadden was representing himself and appeared to have provided enough information to identify some unidentified defendants, the court directed the New York City Law Department to investigate their identities and service addresses. The defendants identified the unidentified doctor as Erick Eiting, M.D., but said they could not identify the two correction officers because many officers had been working in the relevant area.

McFadden later provided additional information, including that the Rikers Island incident occurred on April 20, 2017, during the late-evening shift, and descriptions of the two correction officers. He also said that five police officers, rather than three, had initially arrested him and identified Detective William McLaughlin, Detective O’Leary, Detective Peter Lumia, Detective Austin Morange, and Sergeant Al Cantora Ooal. He asked the court for guidance about a consent and authorization form that defendants allegedly wanted him to sign for discovery.

Orders

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered McFadden to file an amended complaint by January 13, 2020, using the court’s form. The amended complaint was to include the true name of any previously unidentified defendant whose identity McFadden had learned, including Dr. Eiting and the police officers he alleged were involved in his arrest. The court stated that it would screen any amended complaint and issue a service order if appropriate.

The court also ordered the defendants to submit a letter by December 20, 2019, describing their efforts to identify the two correction officers, explaining why McFadden’s information was insufficient, and answering questions about whether an intake station was across from his holding cell on April 20, 2017 and, if so, how many officers worked there during the relevant shifts.

The court denied McFadden’s request for guidance about discovery and the consent and authorization form. The court explained that giving that kind of legal advice was outside the ordinary role of a district court in deciding a case.

Disposition and classification

The order did not decide whether McFadden’s constitutional-rights allegations were valid. It required further pleading and information about identifying defendants, and it denied his request for discovery guidance. This is a procedural order.