Calixte v. The City of New York

Background

Shara M. Calixte, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Her claims arose from her arrest and detention by security guards employed at the New York City Human Resources Administration’s office at 12 West 14th Street in New York City. She sued the City of New York, the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA), and two unidentified defendants listed as John Doe Security Guard and Jane Roe Security Guard. The court also construed her complaint as asserting additional state-law claims.

The court had previously allowed Calixte to proceed without paying court fees. In reviewing a complaint filed under that permission, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally supportable claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also stated that it must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint generously and interpret it to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.

Ruling on the HRA

The court dismissed Calixte’s claims against the HRA. It held that the HRA, as an agency of the City of New York, is not an entity that can be sued separately. The order did not add a prejudice designation to this dismissal.

Service on the City

Because Calixte was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for the City and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summons for the City is issued.

Identifying the guards

The court found that Calixte had provided enough information for the HRA to identify the two guards who allegedly worked at the office on December 21, 2017, handcuffed her, and escorted her out. The court directed the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York to determine the guards’ identities and service addresses and provide that information to Calixte and the court within 60 days.

Calixte was directed to file an amended complaint naming the guards and listing their service addresses within 30 days after receiving the information. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue further service instructions.

Other directions and disposition

The court directed the Clerk to mail Calixte the order and an information package, and to mail the order and complaint to the City’s Corporation Counsel. It also required Calixte to notify the court of any address change and stated that the action could be dismissed if she failed to do so.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. Judge Jesse M. Furman’s order dismissed the claims against the HRA, directed service on the City, and directed assistance in identifying the two guards; it did not resolve the merits of Calixte’s underlying claims.