Santana v. Doe

Background

Fernando Santana, proceeding without a lawyer, sued two unidentified police officers from Transit District 11 and the New York City Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the officers violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.

Santana alleged that Officer John Doe #1 assaulted him in a Transit District 11 processing or booking room while he was being processed for transport to Lincoln Hospital. He alleged that, later that evening at Lincoln Hospital, Officer John Doe #2 refused his request to have only one wrist restrained, even though his hands had been cuffed behind his back for more than two hours. Santana alleged that Doe #2 then physically assaulted him after he complained and told him to stop complaining. Santana reported bruising on the left side of his face, bruising on both elbows, and bruising and a laceration on the bottom of his lip. He sought at least $150,000 in damages.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the allegations as excessive-force claims under the Fourth Amendment and § 1983. To state a § 1983 claim, Santana had to allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state authority.

For the alleged assaults, the court explained that force is excessive when it is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. Santana alleged only that he was “assaulted” and did not describe the amount or type of force used. He also did not explain what happened before the officers used force, why he was arrested and taken to Lincoln Hospital, or whether he was resisting Officer Doe #2’s commands. The court therefore granted him leave to provide specific facts supporting an excessive-force claim.

For the handcuffing claim, the court applied factors including whether the cuffs were unreasonably tight, whether the officers ignored complaints about the cuffs, and the extent of the wrist injury. Santana did not connect his reported facial, elbow, or lip injuries to the handcuffing. The court stated that his allegations might show discomfort from being cuffed for two hours, but that an excessive-force claim generally requires an injury beyond temporary discomfort or bruising.

The court also addressed the New York City Police Department. Santana named the department in the caption but did not discuss it in the body of the complaint. The court stated that a city agency such as the Police Department is not an entity that can be sued. If Santana intended to sue the City of New York, he had to allege facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation, not merely that a city employee allegedly acted wrongfully.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court granted Santana 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. It had to identify the defendants involved, describe each defendant’s conduct, provide the approximate dates, times, and locations of the events, describe the injuries, and state the requested relief. Santana could continue to use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for defendants whose names he did not know.

The court stated that any claims against the New York City Police Department would have to be dismissed and that any claim against the City of New York would require allegations of a municipal policy, custom, or practice causing the alleged constitutional violation. If Santana failed to amend within the permitted period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. No summons would issue at that time.