Dieng v. New York City NYPD
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-01834
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dieng v. New York City NYPD, Judge Subramanian granted an answer extension, declined default, and denied pro bono counsel.
Babacar Dieng, New York City NYPD, the other defendants, and any party seeking to respond to the complaint or obtain pro bono counsel in this case.
What happened
Babacar Dieng filed this case against New York City NYPD and others. New York City NYPD missed the deadline to answer but later appeared and asked for more time.
The court said it would not enter a default because New York City NYPD had appeared. It also said that, even if a default had been entered, there was good reason to set it aside. The court extended the deadline for all defendants to answer or otherwise respond to June 14, 2024.
The court denied the request for pro bono counsel because it could not determine at that stage that the claims were likely to have enough merit. The court also stated that the New York City Police Department and New York City Fire Department are city agencies that cannot be sued directly, while allowing the plaintiff to renew the request if additional supporting facts are later presented. Judge Arun Subramanian signed the order.
The detailed version
- Dieng v. New York City NYPD · No. 1:24-cv-01834
- Subramanian
- May 9, 2024
Background
Babacar Dieng filed the case on March 10, 2024. Defendant New York City NYPD did not meet the deadline to answer the complaint. A few days later, it asked the court not to enter a default or default judgment and to extend the time to answer.
Default and answer deadline
The court stated that it would not enter a default because New York City NYPD had appeared. The court added that, even if a default had been entered, there would have been good cause to set it aside because the failure was not willful, defense counsel requested an extension only a few days after the deadline passed, and setting aside the default would not prejudice the party that received the default. The court granted the application for an extension. The new deadline for all defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was June 14, 2024.
Request for pro bono counsel
The court denied the application for pro bono counsel. It explained that a person seeking a free lawyer must first show financial inability to hire counsel and then must show that the claims appear likely to have substance, meaning sufficient potential merit. At that stage, the court could not determine that the plaintiff's claims met the likely-merit requirement.
The court also stated that the New York City Police Department and New York City Fire Department are agencies of the City of New York and cannot be sued directly. It said the plaintiff could renew the application for counsel if the litigation later produced additional facts supporting the plaintiff's contentions.
Disposition
The court did not enter a default, granted the defendants' application for additional time to answer, and denied the application for pro bono counsel. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Docket Entries 10 and 12. Judge Arun Subramanian signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.