Washington v. New York Police Department

Background

Charmeen D. Washington appeared without a lawyer and invoked federal-question jurisdiction. The court had previously granted her permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance. Washington alleged that, on July 4, 2023, near 42nd Street and Third Avenue in Manhattan, a person in plain clothing whom she had previously seen wearing an NYPD uniform turned toward her, threatened to fight and hit her, and later came around her neighborhood. She said she experienced harassment and a slight stroke. She reported the incident to NYPD Detective Vasquez and sued the New York Police Department and Ms. Vasquez, seeking the largest amount of money damages she could receive.

Screening standards

Because Washington was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it must dismiss such a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally, but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Claims against the New York Police Department

The court stated that the NYPD lacks the legal capacity to be sued in the agency’s own name under the New York City Charter. It also found no proper basis to substitute the City of New York for the NYPD. To bring a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City, Washington would need to allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of her constitutional rights. The court found that her complaint did not make that showing.

Claim against Detective Vasquez

Washington alleged that she filed a complaint with Detective Vasquez about the street encounter. The court held that merely accepting her complaint did not show Vasquez’s personal involvement in a violation of Washington’s civil rights. The court therefore found that the allegations against Vasquez failed to state a claim for relief.

Excessive-force claim

The court understood the complaint as potentially asserting a claim that a police officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It noted that excessive-force claims involving an arrest, investigative stop, or other seizure are evaluated under an objective-reasonableness standard. Although verbal threats can contribute to an excessive-force claim in some circumstances, the court found that Washington’s allegation that a person on 42nd Street threatened to hit her lacked enough factual context to state a § 1983 excessive-force claim. Washington had not named the unidentified person as a defendant, had not provided enough information for the NYPD to identify that person, and had not alleged enough facts to establish a constitutional violation.

Leave to amend

The court granted Washington leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must identify the individuals allegedly involved, or use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if a name is unknown; describe what each defendant did, when and where the events occurred, and the injuries and relief sought; and include any facts needed to support a claim against the City. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. If Washington failed to file it on time without showing good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Request for counsel and disposition

The court denied Washington’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel because the complaint failed to state a claim against any named defendant. In discussing that ruling, the court stated that the denial was without prejudice to renewal after Washington filed an amended complaint. The conclusion also denied the application, granted leave to amend, directed Washington to file the amended complaint within 60 days, and stated that no summons would issue at that time. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.