McKinley v. Detective Kyle Crevatas

Background

Mark McKinley brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state law. The opinion states that McKinley was incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility and was proceeding without a lawyer. The defendants named in the caption were several unidentified police officers, the New York City Police Department, the Ninth Precinct, and the City of New York.

The court had previously allowed McKinley to proceed without paying the filing fee at the start of the case. Because he was proceeding without payment, the court screened the complaint under statutes requiring dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it must read filings by people without lawyers liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they suggest.

The opinion states that McKinley provided enough information for the police department to identify the unnamed officers involved in his arrest or body-cavity search on March 27, 2018. It does not describe the alleged constitutional violations in detail or decide whether those allegations are legally valid.

Rulings

The court dismissed McKinley’s claims against the New York City Police Department because, as a City agency, it lacks the capacity to be sued. The court likewise dismissed the claims against the Ninth Precinct because it also is not a suable entity. The court explained that claims involving the police department must instead be brought against the City of New York.

The court did not dismiss the claims against the City of New York in this order. It directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City. The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summons is issued and stated that McKinley should request more time if service is not completed within that period.

Under a rule allowing assistance in identifying unnamed defendants, the court ordered the New York City Law Department to determine the identities, badge numbers, and service addresses of the John Doe police officers. The Law Department was given 60 days from the order’s date to provide that information to McKinley and the court. McKinley was then required to file an amended complaint within 30 days after receiving the information. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and the court would screen it after filing.

The court directed that a copy of the order and complaint be sent to the New York City Law Department and that an amended-complaint form be provided to McKinley. It also required McKinley to notify the court of any address change and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

Effect of the Order

This was a screening and service order, not a decision on whether the alleged arrest or body-cavity search violated McKinley’s rights. The claims against the NYPD and Ninth Precinct were dismissed; the order directed further steps concerning the City and the unnamed officers.