Syville v. City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-09988-VEC-VF
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Syville v. City of New York, Judge Caproni dismissed claims against the homeless-services agency and ordered service and defendant-identification steps.
Alphonso Syville; the New York City Department of Homeless Services; the City of New York; and the unnamed DHS peace officers.
What happened
In Syville v. City of New York, Alphonso Syville, representing himself, alleged that defendants assaulted him and denied him needed assistance at a homeless shelter. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, and the court also treated his allegations as raising claims under a federal civil-rights statute and state law.
The court dismissed Syville’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued separately from the City. The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City of New York, and directed the New York City Law Department to identify the unnamed peace officers Syville accused of assaulting him and denying him assistance. Syville was ordered to file an amended complaint naming those defendants after receiving the information.
Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order on December 5, 2019. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Syville v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09988-VEC-VF
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
Alphonso Syville, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York, the New York City Department of Homeless Services, and the DHS Peace Officers Service. He alleged that defendants assaulted him and denied him needed assistance at a homeless shelter on July 2, 2019. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law. The court had previously allowed Syville to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Screening standard
Because Syville was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. It stated that it must dismiss all or part of such a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.
Claims against the Department of Homeless Services
The court dismissed Syville’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services. It relied on New York City Charter chapter 17, section 396, and cited decisions explaining that a New York City agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued. The opinion does not decide the merits of Syville’s allegations that he was assaulted or denied assistance.
Service on the City
Because Syville was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City of New York. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons was issued. It stated that, if service was not completed within that period, Syville should request an extension. The court also required Syville to notify the court in writing if his address changed and warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Identifying the unnamed officers
The complaint identified enough information for the Department of Homeless Services to help identify the unnamed peace officers, referred to as John Does, whom Syville sought to sue. The court therefore ordered the New York City Law Department, described in the opinion as the agency’s attorney and agent, to determine each officer’s identity and service address and provide that information to Syville and the court within 60 days.
After receiving that information, Syville was required to file an amended complaint naming the officers within 30 days. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, direct the Clerk to prepare additional service paperwork.
Disposition
The court dismissed Syville’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services. It ordered service paperwork for the City of New York, directed the Law Department to provide information identifying the unnamed officers, and directed that the order and complaint be sent to the Law Department. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.