Perez v. NY Police

Background

Juana Perez appeared without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. She sued defendants identified in the caption as “NY Police” and “New York City Port Authority Bus Terminal.” The court understood the alleged events to have occurred at the bus terminal and to involve an interaction with police. The complaint alleged, in difficult-to-read language, that police removed Perez from a bathroom, yelled, touched her body, and otherwise harmed her. Perez did not identify any injuries or state what relief she wanted.

Screening standard

Because Perez was proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court was required to review the complaint and dismiss it if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read generously, but they still must provide a short and understandable statement showing a plausible entitlement to relief.

Section 1983 analysis

Perez did not identify a legal basis for her claims. The court therefore interpreted the complaint as possibly asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows a person to sue for certain violations of federal rights by someone acting under state authority.

The court said that, if “NY Police” meant the New York City Police Department, the department could not be sued as a separate city agency. The court noted that Perez might instead intend to sue the City of New York, but she alleged no facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of her rights.

The court also held that the Port Authority Bus Terminal was not a “person” capable of being sued under § 1983. It explained that Perez might instead intend to sue the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which can be sued, but she still alleged no facts supporting a claim that the Port Authority caused a rights violation through a policy, custom, or practice.

Disposition and amendment

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It granted Perez 60 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The court directed her to identify who violated her federal rights, what happened, when and where it happened, why she was entitled to relief, and the individuals who allegedly violated her rights. If she pursued claims against the City of New York or the Port Authority, she also had to identify the relevant policies, customs, or practices and explain how they caused the alleged violations. The order stated that judgment would be entered and the case closed if Perez did not file an amended complaint.