El Bey v. Crocilla

Background

Plaintiff, appearing without a lawyer, alleged that Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Officer Crocillo assaulted her at Pennsylvania Station in New York City on January 8, 2020. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion refers to the defendants as Crocillo, the MTA, and the MTA 34th Precinct.

Screening standard

Because Plaintiff was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss any part of the complaint that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it must read filings by people without lawyers generously, while still requiring a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Rulings on the defendants

The court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the MTA and the MTA 34th Precinct under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It reasoned that an agency of the City of New York is generally not an entity that can be sued separately.

Because Plaintiff clearly intended to bring claims against the City of New York, the court directed the Clerk to replace the MTA and the MTA 34th Precinct with the City as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City might assert.

Operative pleading and service

Plaintiff had filed an original complaint and an amended complaint containing the same claims, but the amended complaint omitted some facts from the original. The court therefore treated both submissions together as the operative pleading.

The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and prepare service forms for the City and Officer Crocillo, and to send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses were issued. It also required Plaintiff to notify the court in writing of any address change and stated that the action could be dismissed if she failed to do so.

Appeal provision and disposition

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, so Plaintiff could not proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order. The order dismissed the claims against the MTA and the MTA 34th Precinct, added the City of New York, and directed service on the City and Officer Crocillo. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order.