Brock v. The City of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-03087
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Brock v. City of New York, Judge Gardephe dismissed some claims, denied preliminary relief without prejudice, and allowed service of remaining claims.
Mandela Brock’s claims against Police Officer Vasquez, Jane Doe Kong, and John Doe Vicar were dismissed, as were his claims brought on behalf of his son and the child’s mother. His remaining claims were allowed to proceed to service, subject to later proceedings.
What happened
In Brock v. The City of New York, Mandela Brock, representing himself, alleged that city agencies, shelter operators and employees, and police officers violated his constitutional rights while he and his son used homeless-shelter services. He challenged repeated housing ineligibility decisions, shelter rules, reports to child-protection authorities, exclusion from his residence, and the refusal to accept a police report.
The court dismissed Brock’s claims against Police Officer Vasquez, Jane Doe Kong, and John Doe Vicar because refusing to accept a police report was not a constitutional violation. It also dismissed claims brought on behalf of Brock’s son and the child’s mother because Brock was not an attorney and could not represent them in federal court. The court denied Brock’s request for preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice because he had not shown likely irreparable harm.
Judge Gardephe ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve several remaining defendants and directed Services for the Underserved to identify four unnamed employees. The court also extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued and denied Brock’s request to proceed without paying fees on an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Brock v. The City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-03087
- Paul Gardephe
- Sept. 9, 2021
Background
Mandela Brock, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York; Acacia Network and identified employees; Services for the Underserved and identified employees; and several unnamed New York City Police Department officers. He alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with homeless-shelter services provided to him and his 13-year-old son.
Brock alleged that, after he moved from the single-adult shelter system to a family shelter, he was repeatedly found ineligible for housing despite having previously been found eligible as a single adult. He also alleged that shelter employees repeatedly reported him to the Administration for Children’s Services for briefly leaving his son alone, locked him out of his assigned residence when his son visited the child’s mother, refused to provide a weekend pass for the child, and required a court-ordered custody agreement. Brock further alleged that police officers would not allow him to file a report about these events.
Claims Dismissed During Screening
Because Brock had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court concluded that the claims against Police Officer Vasquez, Jane Doe Kong, and John Doe Vicar could not proceed. Brock alleged that these officers refused to let him file a police report, but the court held that this conduct did not violate a constitutional right. The court therefore dismissed those claims.
The court also dismissed Brock’s claims brought on behalf of his son and the child’s mother. It explained that a person representing himself generally may litigate only his own interests, and that a nonlawyer parent may not represent a minor child in federal court without a lawyer. The opinion does not dismiss Brock’s claims concerning injuries to himself on this ground.
Request for Preliminary Injunction
Brock requested an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 to stop defendants from transferring him without just cause and from imposing unconstitutional rules or policies while the case continued. The court held that he had not shown that he would suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief, which is an extraordinary temporary remedy. The court denied the request for an order to show cause without prejudice to renewal at a later stage.
Service and Unidentified Defendants
The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and provide the necessary paperwork to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on the City of New York, Acacia Network, Services for the Underserved, Daniel Reyes, Tatiana Cave, Donnell Burt, and Joel Barton. Because Brock was proceeding without paying filing fees, the Marshals Service would carry out service. The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses were issued.
The court also directed Services for the Underserved to identify Jane Doe Martine, Jane Doe Baptiste, Jane Doe Facility Manager, and Jane Doe Simmons and provide their service information to Brock and the court within 60 days. The court stated that it would issue further service instructions after receiving that information.
Disposition
The court dismissed Brock’s claims against Police Officer Vasquez, Jane Doe Kong, and John Doe Vicar, and dismissed his claims brought on behalf of his son and the child’s mother. It denied Brock’s request for an order to show cause without prejudice. It ordered service-related steps for the remaining claims and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying Brock permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.