Jallow v. City of New York

Background

Yaya Jallow, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, in 2019, employees of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) falsely detained him, followed him, and forcibly confined and transported him to Jacobi Medical Center. He also alleged that he was confined at the hospital for 21 hours on August 9, 2019, and was later again forcibly confined, transported, and admitted to the hospital on August 30, 2019. He claimed that these actions violated his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by denying him life, liberty, and property without due process. He sought money damages.

Court’s review

Because Jallow had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally, but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible and must satisfy the requirement of a short and plain statement.

Claims against the NYPD and FDNY

The court ruled that claims against the NYPD and FDNY must be dismissed because New York City agencies generally are not separate entities that can be sued. In light of Jallow’s self-represented status and apparent intent to sue the City of New York, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against the City and directed the Clerk of Court to replace the NYPD and FDNY with the City in the caption. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.

Municipal liability

The court explained that a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly committed wrongdoing. A plaintiff must allege facts showing both a municipal policy, custom, or practice and that the policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court granted Jallow leave to add facts supporting those requirements.

Individual defendants

The court also explained that a § 1983 claim against an individual requires facts showing that person’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. Jallow had not identified the employees who allegedly detained, confined, transported, or admitted him. The court therefore granted him leave to name the individual defendants, including by using “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if he did not yet know their names, and to provide facts supporting the claim against each person.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Jallow leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. It instructed him to identify the defendants, describe each defendant’s actions or omissions, provide relevant dates, times, locations, injuries, and requested relief, and include all facts and claims he wished to maintain because the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court directed the Clerk to amend the caption to replace the NYPD and FDNY with the City of New York. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Jallow failed to amend within the permitted period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court granted leave to amend and directed a caption change; it did not enter a final merits ruling on whether Jallow’s alleged detentions and confinements violated the Constitution.