Ware Bey v. Adams
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-02593
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ware Bey v. Adams, Judge Engelmayer dismissed some claims, replaced a city agency with New York City, and ordered service on several defendants.
Vicky Ware Bey’s claims on behalf of the named Doe plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice, and her claims against the New York City Department of Correction were dismissed. The City of New York was added as a defendant, and the action was directed to proceed toward service on five defendants.
What happened
Vicky Ware Bey filed this self-represented lawsuit alleging that the defendants violated her rights. The court said she could not represent the interests of the named John Doe and Jane Doe plaintiffs because she is not a lawyer, and dismissed those claims without prejudice.
The court also dismissed Bey’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because the agency cannot be sued separately from the City of New York. It directed the clerk to add the City as a defendant, while leaving the City free to assert defenses. The court did not order the City to identify the unnamed Doe defendants because Bey had not alleged facts showing their direct involvement or provided information that would help identify them.
Judge Engelmayer directed the clerk to issue summonses for Eric Adams, Louis Molina, Melanie Whinnery, the City of New York, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. Bey had 90 days to serve them or request more time; the court also denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Ware Bey v. Adams · No. 1:22-cv-02593
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 8, 2022
Background
Vicky Ware Bey brought this lawsuit without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. She alleged that the defendants violated her rights. The order addressed who could bring claims, which entities could be sued, and whether the case should proceed to service of the defendants. It did not decide the underlying merits of Bey’s allegations.
Claims on behalf of other plaintiffs
Bey purported to assert claims on behalf of John Doe 1-1000 and Jane Doe 1-1000. The court held that a nonlawyer may represent only her own interests, not those of other people. It therefore dismissed without prejudice any claims Bey was asserting on behalf of those Doe plaintiffs.
New York City Department of Correction and the City
The court dismissed Bey’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because, under the New York City Charter and cited case law, a city agency is not an entity that can be sued separately. Because the complaint showed a clear intention to assert claims against the City of New York, the court treated the complaint as naming the City and directed the clerk to substitute the City for the Department of Correction. The amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City might raise.
Unnamed Doe defendants
Bey also named John Doe and Jane Doe defendants in the caption. The court declined at that time to issue an identification order under Valentin v. Dinkins because Bey alleged no facts showing that these defendants were directly involved in violating her rights and provided no information that would allow a City agency to identify them. The court did not state that it was dismissing claims against these Doe defendants in this part of the order.
Service and appeal status
The court directed the clerk to issue summonses for Eric Adams, Louis Molina, Melanie Whinnery, the City of New York, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. Bey was directed to serve each defendant within 90 days after the summonses were issued. The court stated that failing to serve the defendants or request an extension within that period could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Bey permission to appeal without paying filing fees. It also directed the clerk to mail Bey an information package.
Disposition
The court dismissed without prejudice the claims Bey was asserting on behalf of John Doe 1-1000 and Jane Doe 1-1000; dismissed Bey’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction; directed the clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant; and directed the clerk to issue summonses for the listed defendants.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.