McCallum v. The City of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-00081
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In McCallum v. The City of New York, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger amended the caption, ordered service, and directed identification of an unknown officer.
Douglas McCallum, the City of New York, the unidentified police officer, the Clerk of Court, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the New York City Law Department.
What happened
In McCallum v. The City of New York, Douglas McCallum sued the New York City Police Department and alleged that an unidentified officer falsely arrested and assaulted him. The order states that the Police Department cannot be sued as a separate entity and treated the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to replace the Police Department with the City and add “John Doe Officer” as a defendant. It also instructed the Clerk to issue the documents needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City and ordered the New York City Law Department to identify the unknown officer by March 4, 2022.
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger also explained that McCallum must ensure service within 90 days after the summons is issued and must notify the court if his address changes. This order addressed case administration and service; it did not decide whether his allegations were legally valid.
The detailed version
- McCallum v. The City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-00081
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 15, 2022
Background
Douglas McCallum filed the complaint without a lawyer. The complaint named “NYCPD,” which the opinion says presumably means the New York City Police Department. It alleged that an unidentified member of that department falsely arrested and assaulted McCallum on December 15, 2019. The complaint also included information about a complaint McCallum filed with the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board.
Caption and Service
The court stated that the New York City Police Department is not an entity that can be sued. Because McCallum was representing himself, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York. It directed the Clerk of Court to amend the caption by replacing NYCPD with the City and adding “John Doe Officer” as a defendant.
To permit service through the U.S. Marshals Service, the court instructed the Clerk to complete the required process-receipt form for the City at the New York City Law Department’s listed address, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the necessary paperwork.
Identifying the Unknown Officer
Under the cited precedent, the opinion states that a self-represented litigant is entitled to the district court’s assistance in identifying an unknown defendant. The court found that the complaint appeared to provide enough information for the City to identify the officer. It ordered the New York City Law Department to determine the officer’s identity and file that information on the docket by March 4, 2022.
Responsibilities and Effect of the Order
The court stated that McCallum must ensure service within 90 days after the summons is issued and request more time if necessary. He must also notify the court in writing if his address changes; the court warned that the action may be dismissed if he does not do so. The order did not rule on the merits of McCallum’s allegations or determine whether he will ultimately prevail. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.