Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-00139
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Abdullah v. Huda: Judge Oetken dismissed the 28th Precinct, added New York City, and ordered service on the remaining defendants.
Adbul H. Abdullah’s false-imprisonment claims against the 28th Precinct were dismissed; the City of New York was added as a defendant, and service was ordered on the City, Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, and Officer Carlos M. Gracia.
What happened
In Abdullah v. 28th Precinct, Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, and Officer Carlos M. Gracia, Adbul H. Abdullah, representing himself, claimed under a federal civil-rights law that the defendants falsely imprisoned him. The court reviewed his amended complaint because he had permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court dismissed the claims against the 28th Precinct because the opinion says a police precinct cannot be sued. It replaced the precinct with the City of New York, without affecting any defenses the City may later raise. The court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City, Sergeant Huda, and Officer Gracia.
Judge J. Paul Oetken also extended the service period to 90 days after summonses are issued and denied Abdullah permission to proceed without fees on an appeal from this order. The opinion says the court dismissed the precinct because it “does have” capacity to be sued, but that appears inconsistent with the discussion and the stated result.
The detailed version
- Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda · No. 1:24-cv-00139
- James Oetken
- Feb. 20, 2024
Background
Adbul H. Abdullah, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants falsely imprisoned him. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain had granted him permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court therefore screened the amended complaint under the statute governing complaints filed by people proceeding without prepayment of fees.
Rulings on the parties
The court dismissed Abdullah’s claims against the 28th Precinct. The opinion’s discussion states that a precinct lacks the legal capacity to be sued. It also states that, even if the claims were treated as claims against the New York City Police Department, those claims would have to be dismissed because the Police Department cannot be sued under the New York City Charter.
Because Abdullah clearly intended to assert claims against the City of New York, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to replace the 28th Precinct with the City as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City might assert.
Service of process
The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses for the City of New York, Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, and Officer Carlos M. Gracia; complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms; and send the necessary papers to the Marshals Service for service. Because Abdullah was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court allowed him to rely on the court and the Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It also directed Abdullah to notify the court in writing if his address changes.
Appeal and apparent textual error
The court 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 proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The conclusion states that the claims against the 28th Precinct are dismissed “because it does have the capacity to be sued.” That wording appears inconsistent with the dismissal, the preceding discussion, and the opinion’s explanation that the precinct does not have capacity to be sued.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.