Matthews v. NYPD

Background

Susan Matthews brought this action without a lawyer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged that the defendants discriminated against her because of her race, sex, and age, and retaliated against her for filing a discrimination charge. The court had previously granted her permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Screening of the claims

Because Matthews was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also must dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the matter. In reviewing a complaint filed by someone without a lawyer, the court must interpret the allegations liberally and consider the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the pleading.

The court held that the New York City Police Department lacks the legal capacity to be sued separately. Because Matthews clearly intended to assert claims against New York City, the court ordered the Clerk to replace the Police Department with the City of New York in the case caption. The court stated that this substitution was without prejudice to any defenses the City may later assert.

The court also addressed the defendants described as “unknown employees.” It found that the complaint did not provide enough factual allegations to notify those employees or the court of the claims against them, and did not provide facts sufficient to identify them. The court therefore dismissed Matthews’s claims against the unknown employees without prejudice to repleading them in an amended complaint that she is permitted to file.

Service of process and disposition

The court directed the Clerk to prepare summonses and U.S. Marshals Service forms for the City of New York and Paul Rasa and to provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve them. Because Matthews was proceeding without prepaying fees, the Marshals Service would carry out service. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses were issued. It instructed Matthews to request an extension if service was not completed within that period and required her to notify the court of any address change.

The court dismissed without prejudice Matthews’s claims against the unknown employees and substituted the City of New York for the NYPD. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Jesse M. Furman signed the order on May 17, 2023.