Baylor v. The City of New York et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
TERRANCE BAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-CV-3153 (EK)(LKE)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Terrance Baylor brings this civil rights
action against the City of New York, the New York Police
Department, and three individual police officers. 	The officers
arrested plaintiff for not wearing a seatbelt and for ignoring
an outstanding desk appearance ticket. 	Plaintiff claims that he
was wearing a seatbelt, and that no such ticket existed.
Representing himself, Baylor now brings claims under
Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and false
imprisonment against the officers, the City, and the Department.1
He also moves to proceed in forma pauperis. 	That motion is
granted, but for the reasons outlined below, the complaint is
dismissed as against the City and the Department.
1 Baylor’s complaint alleges distinct claims for false arrest and false
imprisonment. 	Compl. 3, ECF No. 1. 	But “[t]he standards regarding [Section]
1983 claims for false arrest and false imprisonment are identical.” 	Lacey v.
Yates Cnty., 30 F. Supp. 3d 213, 222 n.2 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). 	So, the Court
analyzes these claims together.
Case 1:25-cv-03153-EK-LKE Document 8 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Background
The Court draws the following facts from the
complaint, and presumes their truth for purposes of this order.
Bett Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
On or about March 3, 2024, plaintiff was riding in the
backseat of a car in Brooklyn. 	Compl. 2-3. 	NYPD officers,
including a John Doe sergeant, pulled the car over for a traffic
violation. 	Id. at 2. 	After approaching the vehicle, the
officers asked plaintiff why he was not wearing his seatbelt.
Id. 	He responded that he had been wearing his seatbelt and had
only removed it after being pulled over. 	Id. 	The officers then
asked plaintiff to spell his first and last name and entered it
into an “ipad looking device.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff alleges that the
officers intentionally misspelled his name when entering it into
the device. 	Id. 	After running the search, the officers said
that plaintiff had previously been “issued a desk appearance
ticket” and arrested him. 	Id.
The officers escorted plaintiff to the Sixty-Seventh
Precinct, where he was “placed in custody” of Officers Anthony
Porcelli and Joshua Ferenczy. 	Id. 	Baylor remained in a holding
cell for “several hours” before unnamed officers took him to
“Brooklyn criminal court,” where he “spent several more hours
inside a cell.” 	Id. 	In total, plaintiff was in custody for
“nearly [seventeen] hours.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff alleges on
Case 1:25-cv-03153-EK-LKE Document 8 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
information and belief that the officer-defendants knew that he
“in fact was not issued a desk appearance ticket.” 	Id.
Legal Standard
A complaint must plead facts sufficient to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 	Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570.2 	The Court must accept the truth of “well-pleaded,
nonconclusory factual allegations,” Kiobel v. Royal Dutch
Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 124 (2d Cir. 2010), but it need not
accept “legal conclusions” as true. 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009).
A pro se complaint should be liberally construed.
Ceara v. Deacon, 916 F.3d 208, 213 (2d Cir. 2019). 	Still, an
unrepresented plaintiff is not exempt from “compliance with
relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” 	Traguth v.
Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983). 	A district court may
dismiss an in forma pauperis action if it concludes that the
action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 	28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
Case 1:25-cv-03153-EK-LKE Document 8 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Discussion
Plaintiff cannot sue the Police Department in its own
name. 	Under the New York City Charter, damages actions against
a city agency must be brought “in the name of the city of New
York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise
provided by law.” 	N.Y.C. Charter § 396; see also Jenkins v.
City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007). 	The
Department is therefore dismissed as a defendant.
Furthermore, plaintiff does not plead a viable Section
1983 claim against the City. 	To state a Section 1983 claim
against a municipality, a plaintiff must show that the alleged
constitutional violation was the result of a municipal policy or
custom. 	Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694
(1978). 	Plaintiff does not allege the existence of any such
policy or custom. 	The City is therefore also dismissed as a
defendant.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to proceed in
forma pauperis is granted, and the claims against the City and
Department are dismissed. 	No summons shall issue against those
defendants. Plaintiff’s claim against the Department is
dismissed with prejudice, but his claim against the City is
dismissed without prejudice. 	Plaintiff may, within thirty days
of this order, file an amended complaint that corrects the
Case 1:25-cv-03153-EK-LKE Document 8 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
deficiencies with his Monell claim identified herein. 	He is
further advised that any amended complaint will completely
replace the original complaint, that it must be captioned
“Amended Complaint,” and that it must bear the same docket
number as this order: 25-CV-3153 (EK)(LKE).
The claims against the individual officers may proceed
for now. 	The Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to
issue a summons to the officer-defendants, and directs the
United States Marshals Service to serve copies of the complaint,
this order, and the summons on the officers without prepayment
of fees.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good
faith, and therefore denies in forma pauperis status for the
purpose of an appeal. 	Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,
444-45 (1962). 	The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
Case 1:25-cv-03153-EK-LKE Document 8 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
mail a copy of this order to plaintiff and to note the mailing
on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	March 2, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:25-cv-03153-EK-LKE Document 8 Filed 03/02/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>