Sturdivant v. City of New York

Background

Sean J. Sturdivant, who was incarcerated at Otisville Correctional Facility, filed this case without a lawyer after paying the filing fee. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, alleging that the defendants falsely arrested and imprisoned him. The opinion identifies the defendants as the City of New York, Police Officers Daniel Flaherty and Habekost, the New York City Police Department, and two unnamed police officers.

Screening and claims against the NYPD

Because Sturdivant is a prisoner suing governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear them. In applying these requirements, the court was required to read a complaint filed without a lawyer generously and recognize the strongest claims reasonably suggested by it.

The court dismissed Sturdivant’s claims against the New York City Police Department. It held that a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued separately under the New York City Charter and cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York authority supporting that conclusion.

Service and identification of defendants

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for the City of New York, Daniel Flaherty, and Habekost and send them to Sturdivant for service. He must serve each of those defendants within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If he does not serve them or request more time within that period, the court stated that it may dismiss the claims against them for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.

The complaint provided enough information for the New York City Law Department, which the opinion describes as the NYPD’s attorney and agent, to identify the two unnamed Bronx police officers allegedly involved in Sturdivant’s April 7, 2021 arrest. The court ordered the Law Department to provide the officers’ identities, badge numbers, and service addresses to Sturdivant and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Sturdivant must file an amended complaint naming the officers. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and the court will screen it before directing service if necessary.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the claims against the New York City Police Department, ordered identification of the two unnamed defendants, and ordered summonses for the City of New York, Flaherty, and Habekost. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.