Serrant v. 46th Precinct Police Department

Background

Crystal C. Serrant proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. She brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state law.

The complaint concerned events arising from a custody dispute in Bronx County Family Court. Serrant alleged that, on August 7, 2017, detectives from the 46th Precinct arrested her based on what she said were false claims by her then-husband, Enqi Sang Real, that she had assaulted him. She also described temporary custody orders, orders of protection, police inaction after her calls to 911, and conduct by Family Court judges that she characterized as judicial misconduct. Her claims included false arrest, obstruction, violations of civil rights, and violations of maternal rights.

The original complaint was filed on June 28, 2023, according to the court's earlier order. On November 6, 2023, the court directed Serrant to amend it to address several problems. The court identified the three-year time limit for her § 1983 claims arising from the 2017 arrest; the fact that the police precinct and the New York Police Department were not entities that could be sued; the need for facts showing that a New York City policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation if Serrant intended to sue the City; and immunity protecting the judges from § 1983 suits. The court also said it would later decide whether to consider any state-law claims.

Serrant filed an amended complaint on December 26, 2023. The opinion states that attachments showed the charges against her were dismissed and sealed on August 18, 2017. The amended complaint added some facts but repeated substantially similar claims. Serrant also alleged that she and her children had been trafficked and that she had been gangstalked, cyberstalked, threatened, and harassed. She sought $1 billion in damages.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the amended complaint did not cure the defects identified in the November 6 order. Serrant did not address why her § 1983 claims based on the 2017 arrest should be treated as timely. She again named the police precinct and the New York Police Department even though the court had determined that they were not suable entities. The amended complaint also did not include facts suggesting a viable claim against the City of New York based on a municipal policy, custom, or practice. The judges named as defendants remained immune from suit under § 1983.

The court therefore dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and on immunity grounds. It applied the screening provisions for complaints filed without payment of the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii). The court explained that a person proceeding without a lawyer is generally given an opportunity to amend, but another opportunity may be denied when an earlier amendment failed to fix the defects. It found that further amendment could not cure the problems and declined to allow another amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint. After dismissing the federal claims within its original jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over, any state-law claims Serrant may have intended to assert. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Serrant fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. It directed the clerk to enter judgment. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.