Bullock v. Eric Unknown
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-01555
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Bullock v. Eric Unknown, Judge Stanton dismissed claims against the NYPD and granted leave to amend because the complaint lacked sufficient facts.
Rasaun Bullock and the defendants named in his complaint, including Eric Unknown, Kev Unknown, the NYPD, and the Dunbar Housing Complex. The NYPD was dismissed as a defendant; Bullock was allowed to amend his complaint against the remaining defendants and provide more facts.
What happened
In Bullock v. Eric Unknown, Rasaun Bullock sued Eric Unknown, Kev Unknown, the New York City Police Department, and the Dunbar Housing Complex. He alleged that events at his home on February 12, 2021, began when he “awoke to a break,” but gave no additional facts, injuries, or requested relief.
The court dismissed all claims against the New York City Police Department because a New York City agency cannot be sued as a separate entity. The court also found that the complaint did not provide enough information to tell the defendants what they allegedly did or why Bullock was entitled to relief.
Judge Louis L. Stanton granted Bullock permission to file an amended complaint within 60 days, with more facts about each claim, defendant, event, injury, and requested relief. The court warned that failure to amend on time, without good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.
The detailed version
- Bullock v. Eric Unknown · No. 1:21-cv-01555
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 5, 2021
Background
Rasaun Bullock brought the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. He named Eric Unknown, Kev Unknown, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and the Dunbar Housing Complex as defendants. Bullock alleged that the events occurred on February 12, 2021, at his home in New York City, when he “awoke to a break.” The complaint did not provide additional facts, identify injuries, or request a form of relief.
Legal standard
Because Bullock was proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer generously, the complaint still must provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief and enough facts to make the claim plausible.
Ruling on the NYPD
The court dismissed all claims against the NYPD for failure to state a claim. It relied on New York City law and cited decisions explaining that a New York City municipal agency generally cannot be sued separately from the City of New York.
Failure to provide fair notice
The court also ruled that the largely blank complaint did not allow it to evaluate the nature or extent of any claim. It did not give the defendants fair notice of the allegations against them. The court determined that these defects might be corrected through an amended complaint.
Leave to amend and disposition
The court granted Bullock leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to state the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant, including the people involved, what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate date and location of each event, Bullock’s injuries, and the relief sought. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so Bullock had to repeat any facts or claims he wanted the court to consider. The court stated that if he did not comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.