Duckett v. City of New York

Background

Anthony Bernard Duckett, who was incarcerated and representing himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state laws. He alleges that he was falsely arrested on December 30, 2021, and maliciously prosecuted on charges that were dismissed. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, although the order noted that prisoners must still pay the filing fee over time as required by federal law.

Identifying the unnamed defendants

The complaint named two John Doe officers from the New York Police Department’s 23rd Precinct. Under Second Circuit precedent, a self-represented litigant is entitled to the district court’s assistance in identifying a defendant. The court found that Duckett had provided enough information for the New York Police Department to identify the two officers who allegedly arrested him.

The court ordered the New York City Law Department, described in the opinion as the attorney and agent for the New York Police Department, to determine each officer’s identity, badge number, and address where service could be made. The Law Department must provide that information to Duckett and the court within 60 days of the order’s date.

Within 30 days after receiving the information, Duckett must file a second amended complaint using the officers’ real names. That complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the existing amended complaint. After it is filed, the court will screen it and, if necessary, direct the Clerk to prepare service materials for the U.S. Marshals Service.

Legal clinic referral

The court advised Duckett that he may seek limited-scope assistance from the New York Legal Assistance Group’s clinic for people representing themselves in civil cases. The court emphasized that the clinic is a private organization, is not part of the court, and cannot file papers for him. He remains responsible for filing documents through the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit and for meeting his case deadlines.

Disposition

The court entered an order of service directing identification of the unnamed officers and further amendment of the complaint. It did not decide the merits of the false-arrest or malicious-prosecution allegations. The Clerk was directed to mail the order and complaint to the New York City Law Department. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.