Owens v. Police Department of New York City
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-10213
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In David S. Owens v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Cott ordered service and identification of an unnamed officer without deciding the claims.
David S. Owens, the named New York City defendants, the unnamed arresting officer, the New York City Law Department, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
David S. Owens sued the City of New York and several police officers under a federal civil-rights law, claiming they violated his constitutional rights. Owens was incarcerated and was representing himself. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and paperwork for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve four named officers. It also extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. For the unnamed arresting officer, the New York City Law Department must identify the officer and provide a service address within 60 days, after which Owens must file an amended complaint within 30 days.
Magistrate Judge James L. Cott issued this order of service, which addressed how the lawsuit should proceed but did not decide whether Owens’s constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Owens v. Police Department of New York City · No. 1:19-cv-10213
- George Daniels
- June 25, 2020
Background
David S. Owens brought this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims that state or local officials violated constitutional rights. He was incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility and was proceeding without a lawyer. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.
The complaint named the City of New York; Lieutenant Carmine Semioll; Police Officers Luis Torres, Lindsey Robbles, and Juan Diaz; and an arresting officer identified only as John or Jane Doe, with identification number 947809. The opinion states that Owens alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. It does not decide the truth of those allegations.
Service on Named Officers
Because Owens was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. Although the usual service deadline is 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court extended Owens’s service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued because he could not have served the complaint before the court reviewed it and ordered summonses.
The Clerk of Court was instructed to prepare the required service forms, issue summonses, and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Lieutenant Carmine Semioll, Officer Luis Torres, Officer Lindsey Robbles, and Officer Juan Diaz. The court also directed Owens to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the case could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Identifying the Unnamed Officer
The court stated that a person proceeding without a lawyer is entitled to the district court’s assistance in identifying a defendant. Because the complaint provided enough information to identify the officer who allegedly arrested Owens on November 2, 2016, the court ordered the New York City Law Department to determine the identity and service address of Officer John or Jane Doe, Identification No. 947809, of the 24th Precinct.
The Law Department was ordered to provide that information to Owens and the court within 60 days of the order. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Owens must file an amended complaint naming the officer. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen the amended complaint and, if needed, direct the Clerk to prepare service materials for the newly identified defendant.
Ruling and Effect
James L. Cott entered an order of service. The order directed service of the named officers through the U.S. Marshals Service, required the Law Department to identify the unnamed arresting officer, and required Owens to file an amended complaint after receiving that information. It did not reach the merits of Owens’s constitutional claims, so the case remained pending for further proceedings.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.