Beaman v. Franklin

Background

Shelton Beaman, appearing without a lawyer, sued Michael Franklin, the Director of the Police Service of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; VA Sergeant or Police Officer Bryan; VA Police Officer Young; an unidentified VA police captain or chief; and unidentified VA police officers, including one known as “John.” The opinion says Beaman asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal constitutional damages remedy recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and state law. He sought damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The court stated that the complaint could also be understood to assert claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The court had previously granted Beaman permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was proceeding without paying those fees, the court explained that the court and the U.S. Marshals Service would handle service of the summonses and complaint.

Service on Named Defendants

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Franklin, Bryan, and Young, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms with their service addresses, mark the forms for service on the United States, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court extended the time to serve those defendants until 90 days after summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Beaman was told to request more time. The court also stated that Beaman must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Identifying Unnamed Defendants

The court found that the complaint supplied enough information for the VA to identify the unnamed officers who allegedly ejected or helped eject Beaman from the grounds of the Manhattan VA Medical Center on occasions between September 1, 2018, and March 19, 2019. It ordered the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York to provide the identities, badge numbers if applicable, and service addresses of those defendants to Beaman and the court within 60 days.

Beaman must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified defendants within 30 days after receiving that information. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, direct the Clerk to arrange service on the newly named defendants.

Disposition

The court ordered service on Franklin, Bryan, and Young and ordered the identification of the unnamed defendants. It also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed service and case administration; it did not decide the merits of Beaman’s claims.