Zafar v. New York Police Department

Background

Adeel Zafar represented himself and was allowed to proceed without prepaying court fees. He alleged that, on March 22, 2022, after searching online for credit-repair attorneys, he called an entity identified as “Lexington Law.” He alleged that someone there obtained his Social Security number, bank-account number, and routing number. The next day, his bank informed him that money had been transferred from his account without permission. Zafar went to the listed address and discovered that Lexington Law did not have an office there.

Zafar alleged that he called 911 and 311 but received no assistance. He also went to two locations seeking to file a police report. He asked the court to have the Federal Bureau of Investigation take over the New York Police Department.

Legal standards

Because Zafar was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen his complaint. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or were outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that although it must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a possible legal claim plausible.

Claims concerning the New York Police Department

The court treated Zafar’s claim against the New York Police Department as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims for violations of federal rights by a state or local government actor. The court held that the New York Police Department, as an agency of New York City, was not an entity that could be sued. The court also explained that if Zafar intended to sue New York City, he would need to allege that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of his constitutional rights. The complaint did not contain those allegations.

Claims concerning the Federal Bureau of Investigation

The court held that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was protected by sovereign immunity, which generally prevents federal courts from hearing suits against the federal government and its agencies unless that protection has been waived. The court found that Zafar had not identified a federal statute waiving that immunity and dismissed all claims against the Federal Bureau of Investigation on that basis.

Alleged failure to investigate

The court understood Zafar to allege that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and New York Police Department failed to investigate his identity-theft report adequately. It held that the Constitution does not give individuals an affirmative right to a government investigation of their complaints. The court therefore concluded that these allegations did not state a viable claim under § 1983.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint but granted Zafar leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace the original complaint and include the facts and claims Zafar wanted the court to consider. The court directed him to submit it to the Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, identify the relevant people and events, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that failure to comply, absent 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 Zafar permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.