Surdak Read v. Town of Ramapo Police Dept.
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-03044
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
Surdak Read v. Town of Ramapo Police Dept.: Judge Swain granted 60 days to amend because the complaint may not assert only the plaintiff’s own claims.
Michelle B. Surdak Read was given 60 days to file an amended complaint limited to her own claims. The named defendants remained parties identified in the complaint, but the court did not decide the merits of the claims.
What happened
In Surdak Read v. Town of Ramapo Police Dept., Michelle B. Surdak Read sued a police department, two police officers, and an assistant district attorney under a federal civil-rights law. She referred to a domestic incident, photographs of an alleged injury, evidence, and sexual harassment.
The court questioned whether Michelle B. Surdak Read wrote the complaint because it referred to her in the third person. It also found that some allegations appeared aimed at challenging evidence or statements in criminal proceedings involving another person, rather than asserting violations of her own rights.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the plaintiff 60 days to file an amended complaint stating her own claims and providing facts about each defendant’s conduct, the injuries, and the relief requested. The court warned that the case would be dismissed if she did not comply without good cause, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Surdak Read v. Town of Ramapo Police Dept. · No. 7:22-cv-03044
- Cathy Seibel
- May 31, 2022
Background
Michelle B. Surdak Read, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. She named the Town of Ramapo Police Department, Police Officers Buckley and Ferguson, and Assistant District Attorney Veronica Phillips as defendants. The complaint asserted claims described as “illegal seizure of evidence” and “sexual harassment” arising from a domestic incident on April 4, 2021.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff went to Good Samaritan Hospital after the incident. Officer Buckley photographed her alleged injury. After Plaintiff was discharged, officers returned to her home. The complaint also discussed the officers’ testimony, the location of a weapon, whether statements to police qualified as “excited utterances,” and evidence in criminal proceedings involving David Paul Read.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a person who is not a lawyer generally may represent only herself in federal court, not another person. The court questioned whether Michelle B. Surdak Read was prosecuting the case because portions of the complaint appeared to have been written by someone else and referred to her in the third person.
The court also concluded that several allegations did not appear to assert claims on Plaintiff’s own behalf. In particular, allegations that Plaintiff caused her own injuries, that her statements were unreliable, and that evidence should have been excluded in another person’s criminal proceedings did not appear to be claims based on violations of Plaintiff’s rights.
The court applied the screening requirements for complaints filed without prepaying filing fees. Under those requirements, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally but must still provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.
Ruling and instructions
The court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must state only claims Plaintiff brings on her own behalf and must provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant. The court instructed Plaintiff to identify relevant people and titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it happened, describe her injuries, and state the relief requested.
The amended complaint will completely replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims Plaintiff wants the court to consider must be repeated in the amendment. The court ordered that no summons issue at that time. It stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed period, without good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.