McAuley v. City of New York

Background

James McAuley brought a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials. He asserted false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims arising from his arrest at Grand Central Station on May 24, 2019. McAuley was incarcerated at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset, although prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under the applicable statute.

Because McAuley was incarcerated and proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also stated that self-represented pleadings are read liberally but must still include enough facts to make a claim plausible.

New York City Police Department

The court dismissed McAuley’s claims against the New York City Police Department. It held that, under the New York City Charter, a city agency generally is not an entity that can be sued separately from the City of New York.

Service on the City of New York

Because McAuley was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for the City of New York and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for service. The court extended the deadline for service until 90 days after the summons was issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed.

The court also instructed McAuley to notify the court of any address change and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

Unidentified MTA Police Officers

McAuley referred to unnamed officers who allegedly arrested him. The court directed the Clerk to add “John Doe Police Officers 1-5,” identified as members of the MTA Police, as defendants. That addition was without prejudice to defenses those unidentified defendants might later assert.

The court directed the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to determine the officers’ identities, badge numbers, and service addresses and provide that information to McAuley and the court within 60 days of the order. Within 30 days after receiving the information, McAuley was directed to file an amended complaint naming the officers. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen the amended complaint after it was filed and, if necessary, arrange for service on the newly named defendants.

Disposition

The court dismissed McAuley’s claims against the New York City Police Department. It directed the Clerk to add John Doe Police Officers 1-5 as defendants, issue a summons for the City of New York, and provide the required documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, certifying that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether McAuley ultimately would prevail on his false-arrest or malicious-prosecution claims.