Wallace v. New York Police Department
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-03414
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Wallace v. New York Police Department, Judge Cronan dismissed claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and ordered service and identification steps for remaining defendants.
Timmy Wallace’s claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons were dismissed. The City of New York and the named NYPD defendants were subject to service, and the New York City Law Department was ordered to identify the John Doe officer. Wallace was required to file a third amended complaint after receiving that information.
What happened
In Wallace v. New York Police Department, Timmy Wallace, who was representing himself, sued the City of New York and police officers over an allegedly false arrest and malicious prosecution. He also named the Federal Bureau of Prisons, although the opinion says the alleged arrest involved New York City police officers.
The court dismissed Wallace’s claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons because a federal agency cannot be sued for damages under the constitutional damages remedy discussed in the opinion, and the complaint did not explain the agency’s involvement. The court also ordered the New York City Law Department to identify the unnamed police officer and provide an address for service.
Judge John P. Cronan directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City and the named police defendants, required Wallace to file a third amended complaint after receiving the unnamed officer’s information, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Wallace v. New York Police Department · No. 1:22-cv-03414
- John Cronan
- Sept. 7, 2022
Background
Timmy Wallace, who was proceeding without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution. He sued the City of New York; NYPD Officers Harris Haskovic, Michael Monahan, and Alejandro Azcona; Sergeant David Alston; an unidentified John Doe officer; and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The claims arose from an allegedly false arrest on May 25, 2015, in the Bronx.
Federal Bureau of Prisons
The court explained that § 1983 applies to constitutional violations by people acting under state law. Claims against federal officials may, in some circumstances, proceed under a separate constitutional damages remedy, but the court stated that this remedy does not apply to a federal agency such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The court also found that Wallace’s second amended complaint did not explain why the Bureau of Prisons was named or show that it was involved in the arrest. The court therefore dismissed Wallace’s claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Identifying the John Doe Officer
Because Wallace provided enough information to allow identification of the unnamed NYPD officer involved in the May 25, 2015 events, the court ordered the New York City Law Department to determine that officer’s identity and service address. The Law Department was ordered to provide that information to Wallace and the court within 60 days. Wallace was then required to file a third amended complaint within 30 days after receiving the information. The court stated that the third amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints, and that the court would screen it after filing.
Service and Other Orders
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare summonses and the required U.S. Marshals Service forms for service on the City of New York, Officers Haskovic, Monahan, and Azcona, and Sergeant Alston. The Marshals Service was to receive the necessary paperwork to carry out service. The court extended the service period to 90 days after summonses were issued and stated that Wallace should request an extension if service was not completed within that period. Wallace was also required to notify the court of any address change.
Judge John P. Cronan certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the court resolved the merits of Wallace’s false-arrest or malicious-prosecution claims against the City or the named police defendants.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.