Williams v. The City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-02936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Williams v. The City of New York, Judge Rochon ordered service and identification of unnamed officers in Shamark Williams’s excessive-force case.
Shamark Williams, the City of New York, Officers Luis A. Segura and Osvaldo J. Garcia, the unnamed John Doe officers, the New York City Law Department, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Williams v. The City of New York is a lawsuit by Shamark Williams, who is representing himself, against the City of New York, two identified police officers, and 20 unnamed officers. Williams alleges that the defendants used excessive force in violation of federal civil-rights law and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and have the U.S. Marshals Service serve the City and the two identified officers. The New York City Law Department must identify the unnamed officers within 60 days, and Williams must file an amended complaint naming them within 30 days after receiving that information. The order does not decide whether the excessive-force allegations are valid.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon also extended the service period to 90 days after summonses are issued, instructed Williams to report any address change, and referred him to a free legal clinic for people representing themselves. The order was entered on May 24, 2023.
The detailed version
- Williams v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-02936
- Rochon
- May 24, 2023
Background
Shamark Williams brings a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants are the City of New York; Police Officer Luis A. Segura, Shield No. 7904; Police Officer Osvaldo J. Garcia, Tax #966076; and Police Officers John Does #1–20, sued in their individual and official capacities. The opinion states that the alleged deprivation occurred on August 27, 2020.
The court had previously allowed Williams to proceed without prepaying court fees. Because he was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process.
Service on the Named Defendants
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete the U.S. Marshals Service process forms, issue summonses, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service for service on the City of New York, Officer Segura, and Officer Garcia. The court extended the usual service period so that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Williams should request an extension of time.
Identifying the John Doe Defendants
The court relied on the rule that a self-represented litigant is entitled to help from the district court in identifying a defendant. Because Williams provided enough information for the New York City Police Department to identify the officers involved, the court ordered the New York City Law Department to determine the identity, badge number, and service address of each John Doe defendant Williams seeks to sue. The Law Department must provide that information to Williams and the court within 60 days of the order.
Within 30 days after receiving the information, Williams must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint after it is filed and may then issue further service instructions.
Other Directions and Disposition
The court instructed the Clerk to mail the order and complaint to the New York City Law Department, mail Williams an information package, and refer him to the New York Legal Assistance Group’s Clinic for Pro Se Litigants. The court also directed Williams to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
This is an order arranging service and identification of defendants. It does not decide the merits of Williams’s excessive-force allegations. The order’s stated directives were entered by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.