Washington et al v. The New York City Police Department

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Corporation Counsel is directed to endeavor to ascertain the full name and shield number of the officer from the 88th Pct. involved in the November 20, 2014 search and arrest referred to in pltffs' complaint. The City o f NY need not, though it may, undertake to defend or indemnify the identified NYPD officer at this juncture; this Order merely provides a protocol by which this deft may be properly identified and served. The Corporation Counsel shall provide this information by 2/19/16. (Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 1/17/2016) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)

IN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------)(
URSULA WASHINGTON and
ZIARECOOK,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

fin J}J IJ

!JR'Ks~~ICE

\ \}/

us DISTRICT COURT E 0 N y

*

JAN 25 $)./h
1

*

BROOKLYN OFFICE
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
15-CV-1162 (ENV) (RML)

Detective ISLUND,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------)(
VITALIANO, D.J.
Plaintiffs commenced this action on February 24, 2015, alleging constitutional violations
during the course of a November 20, 2014 search and arrest. On November 30, 2015, the Court
granted plaintiffs' applications to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and
directed the United States Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint upon defendant
Detective Islund. On December 21,2015, the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York (the
"Corporation Counsel") notified the Court that there is no member of the New York City Police
Department ("NYPD") with the last name "Islund," and, therefore, that the named defendant
could not be and had not been served.
As the Corporation Counsel's letter indicates, the United States Marshals Service will not
be able to effect service of process without more information. Where such identifying
information is lacking, the Second Circuit has held that district courts must provide pro se
litigants with reasonable assistance in investigating the identity of such "John Doe" officers. See
Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997) (ro curiam). In furtherance ofthat
responsibility, the Corporation Counsel is directed to endeavor to ascertain the full name and
shield number of the officer from the ggth Precinct involved in the November 20, 2014 search
and arrest referred to in plaintiffs' complaint. The City of New York need not, though it may,

liAM?(Ip
~I

((i{

\

-

undertake to defend or indemnify the identified NYPD officer at this juncture; this Order merely
provides a protocol by which this defendant may be properly identified and served. The
Corporation Counsel shall provide this information by February 19, 2016. 1
So Ordered.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
January 17,2016

(S! uS iff \J tffrZ-- \ ~
ERICN. VITALIANO
United States District Judge

---

The Corporation Counsel notes in his letter that "pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure ... if a defendant is not served within ninety days of filing the
complaint, the Court must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order
that service be made within a specified time." While an accurate quotation, Rule 4(m) also
provides that courts "must extend the time for service" if a plaintiff can demonstrate "good
cause." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Given that plaintiffs are proceeding prose and in forma
pauperis, should service on the officer in question occur after the 90-day deadline, it would be
reasonable to find, under most circumstances, that good cause for an extension of the time to
serve has been shown.
2

~