Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 7, 2021

Reid v. The City of New York

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:20-cv-09243
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Reid v. The City of New York, Judge Failla ordered service on Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. and Lisa Franchini after finding Reid’s amended claims passed initial screening.

Who this affects

Cedric Reid’s amended claims against Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. and Lisa Franchini were allowed to proceed past initial screening, and the court directed service of the case documents on those defendants.

What happened

Cedric Reid, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and represented himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law. The case originally included Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. and Lisa Franchini, members of the New York District Attorney’s Office. After the court dismissed Reid’s earlier claims against them, Reid filed new claims in an amended complaint.

The court found that the amended complaint adequately alleged that Vance and Franchini personally took actions violating Reid’s constitutional rights. It also found that Reid sufficiently alleged the actions were investigative or administrative, rather than actions protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity. The court therefore directed service of the summons and amended complaint on both defendants and extended the time for service.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide whether Reid will ultimately win his claims. She ordered the Clerk of Court to issue new summonses and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service-related steps for Vance and Franchini.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Reid v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-09243
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Sept. 7, 2021

Background

Cedric Reid, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and was representing himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under government authority. The defendants named in the caption included the City of New York, Martha W. King, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., Lisa Franchini, Securus Technologies, and Laura S. Mello.

Reid’s original complaint included claims against Vance and Franchini, whom the opinion identifies as members of the New York District Attorney’s Office. On July 13, 2021, the court dismissed those earlier claims after finding that Vance and Franchini were immune from suit for alleged acts performed within the scope of their official duties. Reid’s amended complaint, docketed on September 1, 2021, asserted new claims against them.

Screening of the Amended Complaint

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires courts to screen claims brought by prisoners against governmental entities and their officers or employees. At this stage, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court concluded that Reid’s amended claims against Vance and Franchini passed that initial screening threshold. It found that the amended complaint adequately alleged their personal involvement in actions that violated Reid’s constitutional rights. It also found that the complaint sufficiently alleged that their actions were investigative and administrative in nature. The court explained that prosecutors performing those functions receive qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity, according to the authorities cited in the opinion.

Ruling and Service

The court directed service of the summons and amended complaint on Vance and Franchini. It ordered that the time to serve them be extended until 90 days after a second amended summons was issued for each defendant. The Clerk of Court was directed to issue those summonses, complete the required service form with the addresses provided in the order, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Reid a copy of the order.

This order concerns initial screening and service. It does not decide whether Reid will ultimately prevail on the amended claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.