Flowers v. Sehl
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-02766
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Flowers v. Sehl, Judge Torres dismissed claims against NYPD, declined to identify John Does, and ordered service on named defendants.
Antoine Flowers’s claims against the NYPD were dismissed. The City of New York and Detectives Donald Sehl, Fred Dorch, Albert Gonzalez, and Michael Best were ordered to be served. The two John Doe defendants were not identified at this stage.
What happened
In Flowers v. Sehl, Antoine Flowers, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued four New York City police detectives, two unidentified defendants, the New York Police Department, and the City of New York under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that the detectives sexually assaulted him and denied him medical treatment for his injuries.
The court dismissed Flowers’s claims against the NYPD because a New York City agency cannot be sued as a separate entity. It declined, at this stage, to order help identifying the two John Doe defendants because Flowers did not describe their involvement or provide information that could identify them.
Judge Torres ordered the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City of New York and the four named detectives. The court also extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Flowers v. Sehl · No. 1:22-cv-02766
- Analisa Torres
- May 10, 2022
Background
Antoine Flowers, who is incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that four New York City Police Department detectives—Donald Sehl, Fred Dorch, Albert Gonzalez, and Michael Best—sexually assaulted him and denied him medical treatment for his injuries. He also named two unidentified defendants, the New York Police Department, and the City of New York.
The court had granted Flowers permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. As part of its required review of the complaint, the court considered whether the claims were legally sufficient and whether the defendants could be sued in the forms identified in the complaint.
Rulings
The court dismissed Flowers’s claims against the NYPD. It relied on New York City law and appellate precedent stating that a city agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued.
Flowers identified two defendants as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2. The court declined to issue an order under Valentin v. Dinkins to help identify them at that time. The court explained that Flowers alleged no facts showing how those defendants were directly involved in violating his rights and provided no information that would allow a City agency to identify them.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare service forms for the City of New York and Detectives Sehl, Dorch, Gonzalez, and Best. Because Flowers was proceeding without prepaying fees, the U.S. Marshals Service would handle service. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses were issued. It also instructed Flowers to notify the court if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Disposition
The order dismissed the claims against the NYPD, declined to issue an identification order for the John Doe defendants, and directed service on the City and the four named detectives. Judge Analisa Torres certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.