Hickman v. NYCPD Pct 030

Background

Quandell Hickman, who was detained at the Eric M. Taylor Center on Rikers Island, filed the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violations of federal rights. The defendants were NYCPD Pct 030, Detective Calderon, and “TD 3.” The court construed the complaint as raising false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims, and also considered allegations suggesting claims based on fabricated evidence and a request for criminal prosecution.

Hickman alleged that the NYPD failed to investigate before prosecuting him, made up a crime, edited videos, and promoted a false narrative. He said he was attacked at a subway station and listed physical and emotional injuries. He requested $1 billion in damages and asked that the defendants be arrested and prosecuted.

Screening standard

Because Hickman had permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. It also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual detail to make a claim legally plausible, while construing a self-represented party’s allegations liberally.

Claims against the precinct and New York City

The court dismissed the claims against the NYPD’s 30th Precinct because a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued under the New York City Charter. The court also considered whether Hickman intended to sue New York City itself. It dismissed any such claims for failure to state a claim because Hickman alleged facts about his individual criminal case but did not allege that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his rights.

Malicious prosecution

The court dismissed the malicious-prosecution claims as premature. Such a claim requires, among other things, a prosecution that ended in the plaintiff’s favor. The court found that Hickman’s related criminal proceedings were ongoing. It therefore dismissed these claims without prejudice to bringing them again in a separate civil action if the proceedings later terminate in his favor or, if he is convicted, the conviction is invalidated or overturned.

Fabricated evidence

The court treated Hickman’s allegations that defendants “made up a crime” and “edited videos” as a possible fair-trial claim based on fabricated evidence. Because the criminal proceedings connected to those allegations appeared to be ongoing, the court concluded that Hickman had not stated a viable claim at that time. It dismissed the fabricated-evidence claims as premature and without prejudice to bringing them again in a separate civil action after the criminal proceedings terminate.

Requests for criminal prosecution and state-law claims

The court dismissed any claims seeking to have individuals arrested or prosecuted for failure to state a claim. It explained that decisions to bring criminal charges belong to prosecutors, not private citizens or the court. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to decide related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Hickman may have intended to assert.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied Hickman leave to amend because it found that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment at that time. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The order specifically preserved the possibility of a new action asserting malicious-prosecution and fabricated-evidence claims after the ongoing criminal proceedings terminate. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.