Garnes v. City of New York
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-01769
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Garnes v. City of New York, Judge Ramos dismissed claims against the Police Department and ordered service on the City and Petrone.
Mark A. Garnes’s claims against the New York City Police Department were dismissed because the department cannot be sued as a separate entity. The City of New York and Highway Patrolman Nikodomus Petrone were the defendants designated for service, and Garnes was responsible for reporting address changes and requesting any needed service extension.
What happened
In Garnes v. City of New York, Mark A. Garnes, representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law and state law, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees and screened his complaint.
The court dismissed all claims against the New York City Police Department because the department is a city agency that cannot be sued as a separate entity. The court ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the City of New York and Highway Patrolman Nikodomus Petrone.
Judge Edgardo Ramos also extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued, required Garnes to report any address change, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order. The order does not decide whether Garnes’s claims against the City or Petrone will ultimately succeed.
The detailed version
- Garnes v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01769
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 7, 2022
Background
Mark A. Garnes, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state law. The court also understood the complaint to assert state-law claims. The court had granted Garnes permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
Screening of the Complaint
Because Garnes was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss any part of the complaint that was 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 said that it must interpret a self-represented complaint liberally and read it to present the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations.
Claims Against the Police Department
The court dismissed Garnes’s claims against the New York City Police Department under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It held that the Police Department is an agency of the City of New York and is not a separate entity that can be sued.
Service on the City and Petrone
Because Garnes had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City of New York and Highway Patrolman Nikodomus Petrone, Shield #9873. The court extended the service period to 90 days after summonses are issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. It stated that Garnes should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.
The Clerk of Court was ordered to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue the summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the City and Petrone. Garnes was instructed to notify the court in writing if his address changes; the court stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Disposition
The court dismissed Garnes’s claims against the New York City Police Department. It ordered issuance of summonses and Marshals Service for the City of New York and Petrone. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The order does not resolve the merits of the claims against the City or Petrone.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.