Clark v. Hutchison
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-03271
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Clark v. Hutchison, Judge Roman dismissed the police department, substituted the City of Mount Vernon, and ordered service on the remaining defendants.
Cleon Clark’s claims against “Mount Vernon Police (All)” were dismissed, while the action was directed to continue against Officers Hutchison and Martinez and the City of Mount Vernon through court-ordered service.
What happened
In Clark v. Hutchison, Cleon Clark, who was detained in the Westchester County Jail and representing himself, alleged that Hutchison, Martinez, and the Mount Vernon Police used excessive force and falsely arrested him under a federal civil-rights law. Judge Nelson S. Roman had previously allowed Clark to proceed without paying court fees upfront.
The court dismissed the claims against “Mount Vernon Police (All)” because it understood that name to refer to the Mount Vernon Police Department, which the court said is not legally separate from the City of Mount Vernon and cannot be sued independently. The court directed the clerk to replace that defendant with the City of Mount Vernon and ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Hutchison, Martinez, and the City.
Judge Roman also extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued, warned Clark to report address changes, and denied permission to proceed without fees for an appeal from this order. The order did not decide whether Clark’s excessive-force or false-arrest allegations were correct.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Hutchison · No. 7:23-cv-03271
- Nelson Roman
- May 16, 2023
Background
Cleon Clark, who was detained in the Westchester County Jail and proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Defendants Hutchison, Martinez, and “Mount Vernon Police (All)” used excessive force against him and falsely arrested him. The court had granted Clark permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, although the order noted that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee over time.
Mount Vernon Police Department
The court construed “Mount Vernon Police (All)” as an attempt to name the Mount Vernon Police Department. It held that the department is an administrative arm of the City of Mount Vernon, has no separate legal identity from the city, and cannot be sued independently. The court therefore dismissed Clark’s claims against “Mount Vernon Police (All).”
Because Clark was representing himself and appeared to intend to sue the city, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against the City of Mount Vernon. It directed the clerk to amend the case caption under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 by replacing “Mount Vernon Police (All)” with the City of Mount Vernon. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the city might later assert.
Service of process
Because Clark was allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court ordered the clerk to issue summonses and prepare the required U.S. Marshals Service forms for Hutchison, Martinez, and the City of Mount Vernon. The clerk was also directed to provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve those defendants.
The court explained that Clark’s deadline to complete service would be 90 days after the summonses were issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. If service was not completed within that period, the court instructed Clark to request an extension. The court also required Clark to notify it in writing if his address changed and warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Other directions and disposition
The court informed Clark that he could seek limited-scope assistance from the New York Legal Assistance Group’s clinic for people representing themselves in civil cases. The clinic was not appointed as Clark’s counsel and could not file documents for him.
Judge Roman’s order dismissed the claims against “Mount Vernon Police (All),” added the City of Mount Vernon as a defendant, and ordered service on Hutchison, Martinez, and the city. The order did not decide the merits of the excessive-force or false-arrest allegations. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.