McKinley v. Detective Kyle Crevatas
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-03606
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In McKinley v. Detective Kyle Crevatas, Judge Failla ordered identification of two remaining officers and allowed amendment; she did not decide the claims.
Mark McKinley, the two still-unidentified police officers, the City of New York, the New York City Police Department’s 9th Precinct, and the City’s Corporation Counsel were affected. Corporation Counsel must identify the two officers, and McKinley must file a replacement amended complaint after receiving that information.
What happened
In McKinley v. Detective Kyle Crevatas, Mark McKinley’s complaint named five unidentified police officers, the New York City Police Department’s 9th Precinct, and the City of New York as defendants. The court had already directed the City’s Corporation Counsel to identify the officers.
Corporation Counsel identified three officers but asked for more information about the remaining two. After McKinley supplied that information, the court ordered Corporation Counsel to identify the two remaining officers and provide their badge numbers, if applicable, within 60 days. McKinley must then file an amended complaint using the officers’ real names within 30 days after receiving the information.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the order on August 11, 2020. The order did not decide whether McKinley’s claims were legally valid; it set procedures for identifying defendants and filing an amended complaint, after which the court said it would screen the amended complaint.
The detailed version
- McKinley v. Detective Kyle Crevatas · No. 1:20-cv-03606
- Katherine Failla
- Aug. 11, 2020
Background
Mark McKinley’s complaint named five defendants as “John Doe” police officers because their identities were not yet known. It also named the New York City Police Department’s 9th Precinct and the City of New York. The court previously directed the City’s Corporation Counsel—the City’s attorney—to identify the five officers under a procedure allowing plaintiffs to discover the identities of unknown defendants.
Corporation Counsel reported that three of the five officers had been identified and provided their identities and badge numbers. Corporation Counsel requested additional information to identify the other two officers. After the court ordered McKinley to provide more information, he submitted a letter on August 4, 2020. A footnote states that McKinley had already amended his complaint to name the three officers identified earlier.
Order
The court ordered Corporation Counsel to determine the full identities and badge numbers, if applicable, of the two remaining John Doe defendants. Corporation Counsel must provide that information to McKinley and the court within 60 days of the August 11, 2020 order.
After receiving the information, McKinley must file an amended complaint naming the officers within 30 days. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court provided an amended-complaint form. After McKinley files the amended complaint, the court will screen it and, if necessary, direct the Clerk of Court to prepare documents needed for service by the United States Marshals Service.
Effect of the Order
The order addressed defendant identification, amendment of the complaint, and possible service of process. It did not rule on the merits of McKinley’s claims, determine whether any defendant violated his rights, or dismiss or grant judgment on any claim. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.