Lurch v. The City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-11254
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lurch v. City of New York, Judge Caproni ordered service on the City and required identification of unnamed officers and medical workers.
Robert Derek Lurch, Jr.; the City of New York; the unnamed New York City police officers, Emergency Services Unit officers, and emergency medical workers; the New York City Law Department; and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Lurch v. The City of New York is a lawsuit by Robert Derek Lurch, Jr., who alleged that city police officers, emergency-services officers, and emergency medical workers used excessive force, handcuffed him, and took him to a hospital against his will. He said he was not a danger to himself or others.
The court had already allowed Lurch to proceed without paying filing fees. It directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and serve the City of New York, and extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons was issued.
Judge Valerie Caproni also ordered the New York City Law Department to identify the unnamed officers and medical workers within 60 days. Lurch must then file an amended complaint naming them within 30 days after receiving that information; the order did not decide whether his claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Lurch v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11254
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. brought a case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state or local authority. He proceeded without a lawyer. Lurch alleged that after noon on November 25, 2019, at 50 Broadway in Manhattan, the defendants used excessive force against him, handcuffed him, and transported him to a hospital against his will. He alleged that he was not a danger to himself or others.
Lurch sued the City of New York and unidentified New York City police officers, Emergency Services Unit officers, and emergency medical workers. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying court fees.
Service on the City
Because Lurch was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the deadline for service until 90 days after the summons was issued because Lurch could not have served the summons and complaint before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered a summons issued.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for the City of New York, issue a summons, and provide the required paperwork to the Marshals Service. The order also required Lurch to notify the court in writing if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Identifying the unnamed defendants
The court stated that a self-represented plaintiff is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying an unnamed defendant. It found that Lurch appeared to have provided enough information for the New York City Law Department to identify the officers and emergency medical workers who restrained him and transported him to the hospital on November 25, 2019.
The court therefore ordered the New York City Law Department to determine the identities, badge numbers, and service addresses of the unnamed defendants and provide that information to Lurch and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Lurch must file an amended complaint naming those defendants. The amended complaint will 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 service paperwork for the newly identified defendants.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order directing service on the City of New York and requiring the Law Department to identify the unnamed defendants. The order did not resolve the merits of Lurch’s excessive-force or involuntary-transport allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.