Hardin v. Suffolk County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 7/31/202   5 1:02 pm

-------------------------------------------------------------------X

CHOYCE A. HARDIN, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff, LONG ISLAND OFFICE

MEMORANDUM &

ORDER

-against- 25-CV-2820 (GRB)(ARL)

SUFFOLK COUNTY, JOHN DOE OFFICERS,

Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------------------X

GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge:

By Order dated June 25, 2025, the Court denied the application filed by Choyce Hardin

(“Plaintiff”), acting pro se, to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) without prejudice and with leave

to renew. (See Docket Entry (“DE”) 7.) Plaintiff timely filed the renewed application on July 7,

2025. (See DE 8.) Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s financial position as reported on

the renewed application qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing

fee. Accordingly, the renewed IFP application is granted and the Court orders service of the

summonses and complaint upon the defendants other than Suffolk County by the United States

Marshal Service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

However, given that the identities of these defendants are unknown to Plaintiff at this time,

the Court requests, pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 75-76 (2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam),

that the Suffolk County Attorney ascertain the full names and service addresses of the individuals

involved in the events alleged in the complaint. (See DE 1.) Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court

shall serve a copy of the complaint together with this order on the Suffolk County Attorney, and

the Suffolk County Attorney’s Office is requested to attempt to ascertain the full names of the

unidentified defendants and to provide their names and the address(es) where such defendants can

be served to the Court and to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of the date that this Order is served

upon it.

The Suffolk County Attorney need not undertake to defend or indemnify these individuals

at this juncture. This Order merely provides a means by which the Plaintiff may name and

properly serve these defendants as instructed by the Second Circuit in Valentin. Once the

information is provided to the Court by the Suffolk County Attorney’s Office, Plaintiff’s complaint

shall be deemed amended to reflect the full names of these defendants, a summons shall be issued

to each defendant, and the USMS shall effect service.

With regard to Plaintiff’s claims against Suffolk County, upon screening pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court finds that such claims are not plausible in the absence of any

allegations that the challenged conduct was undertaken pursuant to a municipal policy, practice or

custom. Municipal governments, like Suffolk County, may be held liable under Section 1983

“only for unconstitutional or illegal policies, not for the illegal conduct of their employees.”

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Thus,

Suffolk County could only face liability if Plaintiff alleged a pattern or practice of such conduct.

To state a claim against a municipality under Section 1983, “the plaintiff is required to show that

the challenged acts were performed pursuant to a municipal policy or custom.” (Id.) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, as is readily apparent, Plaintiff’s sparse complaint

is devoid of any such allegations. Plaintiff has not pled that his detention and the allegedly

unconstitutional conditions of his confinement including the involuntary DNA collection on a

single date were the result of a policy or practice of Suffolk County. See Haskins v. SCCF, No.

25-CV-1536(GRB)(AYS), 2025 WL 1434271, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2025) (citing Parker v.

Suffolk County Police Dept., No. 22-CV-3969(GRB)(AYS), 2023 WL 5047784, at *6 (E.D.N.Y.

Aug. 7, 2023) (citing Joyner-El v. Giammarella, No. 09-CV-2731 (NRB), 2010 WL 1685957, at

2

*7-8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2010)) (dismissing any Monell claim because the plaintiff had “pointed

to no policy or custom on the part of New York City that might plausibly have caused any of his

alleged constitutional injuries”); Overhoff v. Ginsburg Dev., L.L.C., 143 F. Supp. 2d 379, 389

(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (dismissing Section 1983 complaint against municipality due to plaintiff's failure

to “allege that her constitutional rights were violated pursuant to any municipal policy or

custom”)). Given the absence of allegations suggesting that the alleged deprivation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights was pursuant to some municipal policy, practice, or custom, Plaintiff’s claims

are not plausible and are thus dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken

in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully

directed to serve a copy of this order to Plaintiff at his address of record and note service on the

docket. In addition, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the complaint together with this

order on the Suffolk County Attorney, and the Suffolk County Attorney’s Office is requested to

attempt to ascertain the full names of the unidentified defendants and to provide their names and

the address(es) where such defendants can be served to the Court and to Plaintiff within thirty (30)

days of the date that this Order is served upon it.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Gary R. Brown

_______________________

Dated: July 31, 2025 GARY R. BROWN

Central Islip, New York United States District Judge

3