# Hardin v. Suffolk County

> District Court, E.D. New York · July 31, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11112574

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** July 31, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11112574

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11112574. Public record. Not legal advice.