Porath v. City of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-01302
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Porath v. City of New York, Judge Cronan dismissed claims against a city agency, authorized Marshals service on other defendants, and denied appeal fee status.
David K. Porath’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services were dismissed. His claims against New York City, New York State Parole Officer Akaneme, and the Director of the Bellevue Men’s Shelter remained subject to service through the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Porath v. City of New York, David K. Porath, who was incarcerated at Rikers Island and represented himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law, claiming that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court dismissed Porath’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services because the agency could not be sued as a separate entity. The case was not dismissed as to the other named defendants. Because Porath was allowed to proceed without upfront fees, the court directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and serve the papers on New York City, New York State Parole Officer Akaneme, and the Director of the Bellevue Men’s Shelter.
Judge John P. Cronan also extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued and explained that Porath must notify the court of any address change. The court denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Porath v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01302
- John Cronan
- Mar. 7, 2022
Background
David K. Porath, who was incarcerated at Rikers Island, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires courts to screen complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief from government entities or their officers or employees. The court must dismiss all or part of such a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Claims Against the Department of Homeless Services
The court dismissed Porath’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services. It held that a New York City agency is not a separate entity that can be sued, citing the New York City Charter and decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York.
Service on the Other Defendants
Because Porath had permission to proceed without paying fees upfront, he was entitled to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued because Porath could not have served the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered a summons.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the required service forms, issue a summons, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service for service on New York City, New York State Parole Officer Akaneme, and the Director of the Bellevue Men’s Shelter. The court stated that Porath should request additional time if service is not completed within the deadline. It also warned that he must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the case may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Disposition
The court dismissed Porath’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It did not dismiss the claims against the defendants identified for service in the order. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. Judge John P. Cronan ordered the Clerk to mail Porath a copy of the order and an information package.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.