Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-00139
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, Judge Oetken dismissed the 28th Precinct, added New York City, and ordered service in Abdullah’s false-imprisonment suit.
The plaintiff’s claims against the 28th Precinct were dismissed; the City of New York was substituted as a defendant; and the City, Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, and Officer Carlos M. Gracia were designated for service.
What happened
Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda concerns a self-represented plaintiff’s claim that the defendants falsely imprisoned him under a federal civil-rights law. The plaintiff was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court dismissed the claims against the 28th Precinct because it is not a suable entity. It replaced the precinct with the City of New York and ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City, Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, and Officer Carlos M. Gracia.
J. Paul Oetken also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. This order addressed screening, party identification, and service; it did not decide whether the alleged imprisonment was lawful.
The detailed version
- Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda · No. 1:24-cv-00139
- James Oetken
- May 23, 2024
Background
ADBUL H. ABDULLAH, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants falsely imprisoned him. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The amended complaint named the 28th Precinct, Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, and P.O. Carlos M. Gracia.
Screening and the 28th Precinct
Because the plaintiff was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed the claims against the 28th Precinct because a police precinct lacks the capacity to be sued. It also stated that claims construed as being against the New York City Police Department would fail because that department cannot be sued under the New York City Charter.
City of New York
The court found that the plaintiff clearly intended to assert claims against the City of New York. It therefore replaced the 28th Precinct with the City as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.
Service of the Complaint
Because the plaintiff had permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and complete the required service forms for the City, Sergeant Huda, and Officer Gracia. The Clerk was directed to send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service, which would serve the defendants. The court stated that service would be due within 90 days after the summonses were issued and that the plaintiff should request an extension if service was not completed in that period.
Disposition
The court dismissed the claims against the 28th Precinct, directed that the City of New York be added as a defendant, and ordered issuance of summonses and service on the City, Sergeant Huda, and Officer Gracia. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not reach the merits of the false-imprisonment allegation.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.