Mercado v. New Windsor NY P.D. 12553
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:19-cv-11843
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Mercado v. New Windsor NY P.D. 12553, Judge Seibel dismissed claims against the police department, substituted the town, and ordered service on defendants.
The order removed the New Windsor Police Department as a defendant, added the Town of New Windsor, and directed service on the Town, Detective Frank Volpe, and Detective Kevin Moore. It did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Mercado v. New Windsor NY P.D. 12553, Matthew Louis Mercado, representing himself, sued the New Windsor Police Department and Detectives Frank Volpe and Kevin Moore under a federal civil-rights law. He sought money and court-ordered relief and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
The court dismissed Mercado’s claims against the New Windsor Police Department because, under New York law, a municipal department cannot be sued separately from the municipality. The court treated the complaint as making claims against the Town of New Windsor instead and ordered that the town be added as a defendant.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the Town of New Windsor, Volpe, and Moore. The court did not decide the underlying claims, and it denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Mercado v. New Windsor NY P.D. 12553 · No. 7:19-cv-11843
- Cathy Seibel
- Feb. 18, 2020
Background
Matthew Louis Mercado, who was being held in the Orange County Jail, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional or federal rights by state or local officials. He sued the Town of New Windsor Police Department, Detective Frank Volpe, and Detective Kevin Moore. He sought damages and injunctive relief. The court had already granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
Screening standard
Because Mercado was proceeding without prepaying the filing fee and was detained, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it must read self-represented pleadings liberally, while still requiring enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.
Police-department claims
The court dismissed Mercado’s claims against the New Windsor Police Department, also identified as “New Windsor NY P.D. 12553.” It relied on New York law providing that municipal agencies and departments do not have a separate legal identity and cannot be sued independently from the municipality.
Because Mercado clearly intended to assert claims against the Town of New Windsor, the court construed the complaint as asserting those claims against the town. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, it directed the Clerk of Court to replace the police department with the Town of New Windsor in the case caption. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the town might later assert.
Service of process
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for the Town of New Windsor, Detective Volpe, and Detective Moore; complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms; and provide the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The Marshals Service was to serve those defendants because Mercado had been permitted to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses were issued. It stated that, if service was not completed within that period, Mercado should request an extension of time.
Disposition
Judge Cathy Seibel dismissed Mercado’s claims against the New Windsor Police Department, directed that the Town of New Windsor be added as a defendant, and directed service on the Town, Volpe, and Moore. The order did not resolve the underlying claims against those defendants. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.