Lurch, Jr. v. John Doe
- John Koeltl
- 1:22-cv-04055
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Lurch, Jr. v. John Doe, Judge Koeltl ordered New York City’s Law Department to identify unnamed police defendants.
Robert Derek Lurch, Jr.; the three currently unidentified police officers; and the New York City Law Department, which must help identify the officers and provide service information.
What happened
In Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. v. P.O. John Doe #1 and others, Lurch alleged that police officers unlawfully detained him under New York Mental Health Law § 9.41 and took him to Bellevue Hospital after he was assaulted and robbed. He brought the case without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law.
The court said Lurch provided enough information for the New York City Police Department to identify the three unnamed officers involved in the August 20, 2021 seizure and transport. The court directed the New York City Law Department to provide the officers’ identities, badge numbers, and service addresses within 60 days.
Judge John G. Koeltl also ordered Lurch to file a second amended complaint naming the officers within 30 days after receiving that information. The new complaint will replace the existing amended complaint, and the court will screen it later; the order did not decide whether Lurch’s claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Lurch, Jr. v. John Doe · No. 1:22-cv-04055
- John Koeltl
- Sept. 27, 2022
Background
Robert Derek Lurch, Jr., who the opinion says was incarcerated at Rikers Island, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that on August 20, 2021, after he was assaulted and robbed, police officers unlawfully detained him under New York Mental Health Law § 9.41 and transported him to Bellevue Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. The defendants were identified as P.O. John Doe #1, Doe #2, and P.O. Jane Doe #1 because their names were not yet known.
The court had previously granted Lurch permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The order relied on a rule requiring district courts to help an unrepresented litigant identify an unknown defendant when the complaint provides enough information to do so.
Order
The court found that Lurch had supplied enough information for the New York City Police Department to identify the three unnamed police officers who allegedly seized and transported him. It ordered the New York City Law Department, described in the opinion as the attorney for and agent of the New York City Police Department, to determine each officer’s identity and badge number and the addresses where the officers could be served. The Law Department must provide that information to Lurch and the court within 60 days of the order.
Lurch must file a second amended complaint naming the officers within 30 days after receiving the information. The second amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the existing amended complaint. After it is filed, the court will screen it and may later direct the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service-related steps.
Disposition and significance
The court directed the Clerk of Court to send the order and complaint to the New York City Law Department and to send Lurch an information package and a second amended complaint form. This was an identification and case-management order; it did not rule on the merits of Lurch’s allegations or finally resolve the action.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.