Urena v. The City of New York
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-01880
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Urena v. The City of New York, Judge Rearden dismissed the 48th Precinct, ordered service on two defendants, and required identification of three John Does.
Amaury Urena’s claims against the 48th Precinct were dismissed; the claims against the City of New York and Officer Aponte were directed to service, and the three unidentified defendants were subject to an identification-and-amended-complaint process.
What happened
In Urena v. The City of New York, Amaury Urena, representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law against the City of New York, the 48th Precinct, Officer Aponte, and three unidentified defendants. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The court dismissed the claims against the 48th Precinct because it cannot be sued. It directed the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City and Officer Aponte, and directed the New York City Law Department to identify the three unidentified defendants.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden ordered the Law Department to provide the unidentified defendants’ names, badge numbers, and service addresses within 60 days. Urena must then file an amended complaint naming them within 30 days after receiving that information; the court will later screen that complaint.
The detailed version
- Urena v. The City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-01880
- Rearden
- May 13, 2024
Background
Amaury Urena, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York, the 48th Precinct of the New York City Police Department, Officer Aponte, and three John Doe defendants. The court had previously granted Urena permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
This order addresses whether the named defendants can be sued and how the case should be served. It does not decide the underlying merits of Urena’s civil-rights claims.
The 48th Precinct
The court dismissed Urena’s claims against the 48th Precinct because a police precinct lacks the legal capacity to be sued. The court also explained that, if the claims were treated as claims against the New York City Police Department, those claims would likewise have to be dismissed because the Department cannot be sued under the New York City Charter. The court instead treated the police-related claim as one against the City of New York.
Service on the City and Officer Aponte
Because Urena was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for the City and Officer Aponte, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service for service. The order states that the complaint must be served within 90 days after the summons is issued. Urena must notify the court in writing if his address changes.
Identifying the John Doe Defendants
The court found that Urena had provided enough information for the New York City Law Department, acting as the New York City Police Department’s attorney and agent, to identify the three John Doe defendants. The Law Department must provide their identities, badge numbers, and service addresses to Urena and the court within 60 days of the order.
Within 30 days after receiving that information, Urena must file an amended complaint naming the Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint and may later issue further service instructions.
Disposition
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden dismissed the claims against the 48th Precinct, directed issuance and service of process on the City of New York and Officer Aponte, and ordered the Law Department to identify the three Doe defendants. The order did not resolve the merits of the claims.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.