Taylor v. New City Police Department

Background

Phillip Taylor Sr., representing himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state actors. He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with a traffic stop and a later trip to New York City Health+Hospitals/Jacobi Hospital. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Screening and rulings

Because Taylor was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that complaints must contain enough factual information to make a claim plausible, while construing self-represented filings liberally.

The court dismissed Taylor’s § 1983 claim against the New York Police Department because a New York City agency is not a separately suable entity. The court directed service on Police Officer Yesenia Rengel and Kirk Robinson in their individual capacities. The Clerk was instructed to issue summonses and provide the necessary paperwork to the U.S. Marshals Service.

The court also found that Taylor had supplied enough information for the New York City Law Department to identify the unnamed police officer who allegedly worked with Rengel at the 44th Precinct during the events described in the complaint. The Law Department was ordered to provide the officer’s identity, badge number, and service addresses within 60 days. Taylor was ordered to file an amended complaint naming the officer within 30 days after receiving that information. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and would be screened if filed.

Other directives and disposition

The court stated that Taylor must request an extension if service is not completed within 90 days after summonses are issued. It also required him to notify the court of any address change and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so. The court referred him to a free legal clinic for people representing themselves, while explaining that the clinic is operated by a private organization and is not part of the court.

The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied Taylor permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion’s opening discussion says that all claims except Taylor’s claims against Rengel and Robinson in their individual capacities were dismissed, but the order also established a process for identifying the John Doe officer and filing an amended complaint. The precise status of any claim against that officer is therefore not entirely clear from the opinion text.