Jallow v. Geffner

Background

Yaya Jallow, who was proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, and other statutes. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying court fees. The order states that an earlier order had dismissed claims against the State of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, and the City of New York, as well as claims under several other statutes. To the extent Jallow’s amended complaint repeated those claims, the court dismissed them for the reasons given in the earlier order.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed the claims against the State of New York, the City of New York, the Department of Correction, and the New York City Police Department. The earlier order had found that the claims against the State were barred by constitutional immunity, that the Department of Correction could not be sued as a city agency, and that the claims against the City did not adequately allege municipal liability. In this order, the court separately held that the Police Department also could not be sued as a city agency and dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim.

Excessive-Force Claim and Service

The order identifies the only remaining claim as Jallow’s allegation that Correction Officer Terrel and four other correction officers used excessive force against him at Manhattan Central Booking on or about April 28, 2022. Although Jallow described facts supporting that claim, he had not named those officers as defendants in the amended complaint. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to add Terrel and four unidentified correction officers, designated as John Doe correction officers 1 through 4, under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court requested that Terrel waive formal service of the summons. It also directed the New York City Law Department to identify the four unidentified officers, provide their badge numbers and service addresses, and give that information to Jallow and the court within 60 days. Jallow must file another amended complaint naming those officers within 30 days after receiving the information. The order states that the new amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints and will then be screened by the court.

Discovery and Appeal Status

The court held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified court-ordered discovery requests within 120 days. The court also directed defendants to quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Jallow permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order did not decide whether the correction officers actually used excessive force; it addressed screening, the proper defendants, identifying the unnamed officers, service, and required discovery.