Reed v. The City of New York

Background

Calvin Reed, a self-represented plaintiff, had named unidentified New York Police Department officers in an amended complaint. On August 20, 2021, the court ordered the City’s Corporation Counsel to provide the identities and badge numbers of those officers. The court granted two extensions of time for that response.

In a February 1, 2022 letter, Corporation Counsel identified multiple officers but stated that it still could not identify three officers described as warrant officers who allegedly arrested Reed on September 10, 2019, or three plainclothes officers who allegedly arrested him on August 3, 2020. Corporation Counsel requested another 60-day extension and permission to serve identification questions on Reed before the usual discovery process.

Order

The court stated that the application was granted in part. It ordered Reed, if he wished to pursue claims against the unidentified officers, to submit a letter by March 4, 2022, with additional identifying information for each officer.

For the September 10, 2019 officers, Reed was ordered to provide the approximate time of the encounter, the location where they approached and arrested him, and physical descriptions, including approximate height and weight, gender, and skin, eye, and hair color. He also had to provide any names or badge numbers he knew. The court specifically asked him to clarify whether the encounter occurred at approximately 10:00 a.m. or 10:00 p.m. and to identify the location, including whether it was the shelter referenced in his amended complaint.

For the August 3, 2020 plainclothes officers, Reed was ordered to provide the approximate time, the location, and the same types of physical descriptions, along with any known names or badge numbers. The court also noted that Reed had referred to being at his job and directed him to provide the employer’s name and the job’s address.

Deadlines and Further Proceedings

Within 30 days after Reed supplied the information, Corporation Counsel was ordered to identify the officers Reed sought to sue, if possible, and provide addresses where they could be served with legal papers. Within 30 days after that identification, Reed was ordered to file a second amended complaint. The court would then review that complaint and, if necessary, issue an order concerning service on the newly identified defendants.

The court reminded Reed that filings had to include the case caption and docket number and be signed. It also noted that the City and Officer Dennis had filed an answer, but the docket did not show that the answer had been served on Reed. The defendants were ordered to promptly file proof of service. Judge Barbara Moses directed the Clerk of Court to mail Reed a copy of the order.