Staboleski v. New York Police Department
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-08834
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Staboleski v. New York Police Department, Judge Failla dismissed claims against the NYPD, substituted New York City, and ordered service.
Jeffrey Staboleski’s claims against the NYPD were dismissed; the City of New York was added as the defendant for service, subject to any defenses it may raise.
What happened
Staboleski v. New York Police Department concerns Jeffrey Staboleski, who was incarcerated and represented himself, and his claims for damages against the New York Police Department. The court understood his complaint to assert federal constitutional, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and state-law claims.
The court ruled that the NYPD, as a New York City agency, cannot be sued. It dismissed Staboleski’s claims against the NYPD, added the City of New York as a defendant, and stated that the amendment did not prevent the City from raising defenses.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and carry out service on the City, with the service deadline extended to 90 days after the summons is issued. Judge Failla also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Staboleski v. New York Police Department · No. 1:19-cv-08834
- Katherine Failla
- Dec. 4, 2019
Background
Jeffrey Staboleski, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York Police Department (NYPD) for damages. The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and state law. Before this order, the court had granted Staboleski permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, although the order noted that prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee under the applicable statute.
Claims Against the NYPD
The court applied the prisoner-complaint screening requirements under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. It ruled that the NYPD, as an agency of the City of New York, is not an entity that can be sued. The court therefore dismissed Staboleski’s claims against the NYPD.
Because Staboleski was proceeding without a lawyer and the court found that he clearly intended to assert claims against the City of New York, the court treated the complaint as asserting claims against the City. It directed the Clerk of Court to replace the NYPD with the City of New York in the case caption. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City might raise. The order does not decide the underlying constitutional, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or state-law allegations.
Service and Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service process form, issue a summons for the City of New York, and send the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. Because Staboleski had permission to proceed without paying fees upfront, the Marshals Service would carry out service. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons for the City is issued. The order also required Staboleski to notify the court of any address change and stated that the case could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla concluded by directing that the City of New York be added as a defendant and that service documents be prepared and delivered to the Marshals Service. She certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.