Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 11, 2022

Johnson v. City of New York

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:21-cv-10535
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
11
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Johnson v. City of New York, Judge Broderick ordered service and identification of unnamed officers, without deciding Glenn Johnson’s claims.

Who this affects

Glenn Johnson, the City of New York, Police Officer Jaylene Rodriguez, Sergeant Jose Rosa, and the two currently unidentified police officers involved in Johnson’s October 8, 2020 arrest. The order also assigns tasks to the Clerk of Court, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the New York City Law Department.

What happened

Johnson v. City of New York concerns Glenn Johnson’s claims that he was falsely arrested, maliciously prosecuted, and falsely imprisoned under a federal civil-rights law. Johnson is representing himself and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees.

The court directed the court clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City of New York, Police Officer Jaylene Rodriguez, and Sergeant Jose Rosa. It also directed the New York City Law Department to identify the two unnamed police officers involved in Johnson’s October 8, 2020 arrest.

Judge Broderick extended the service deadline until 90 days after summonses are issued and required Johnson to file an amended complaint naming the unnamed officers within 30 days after receiving their identifying information. The order did not decide whether Johnson’s claims are valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Johnson v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10535
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Jan. 11, 2022

Background

Glenn Johnson, who is representing himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials. He alleges that he was falsely arrested, maliciously prosecuted, and falsely imprisoned. The court had previously granted Johnson permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Service on Named Defendants

Because Johnson was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court said he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summonses and complaint. The court extended the usual 90-day service period until 90 days after summonses are issued. It stated that Johnson should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete the required service forms, and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on the City of New York, Police Officer Jaylene Rodriguez, and Sergeant Jose Rosa. The order also required Johnson to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

John Doe Defendants

Johnson also named two police officers as John Doe defendants. The court found that his complaint provided enough information for the New York City Police Department to identify the officers involved in his October 8, 2020 arrest. The court therefore directed the New York City Law Department, identified as the Police Department’s attorney and agent, to determine each officer’s identity, badge number, and service address within 60 days.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Johnson must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than add to it. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue further service instructions.

Disposition

The order directed issuance of summonses and service through the U.S. Marshals Service for the named defendants and directed the New York City Law Department to identify the unnamed officers. It did not rule on the merits of Johnson’s false-arrest, malicious-prosecution, or false-imprisonment claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 11-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.