Nachmenson v. NYPD 77th Precinct, 1:17-cv-03637

Plaintiff Nachman Nachmenson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued only the NYPD 77th Precinct alleging police misconduct and failure to investigate a May 28, 2017 burglary.
He alleges prior wrongful arrest and beating by 77th Precinct officers and fears retaliation for a related state-court complaint.
Nachmenson claims the break-in was committed by a member of a neighborhood patrol (Gilad Bazel) and that the 77th Precinct refused to respond to numerous calls or investigate the theft.
He also alleges that Sergeant Sands and others are cooperating with Bazel and unlawfully charging guests of his building, plus harassment by officers.
Plaintiff sought $770,000,000 in damages and injunctive relief; the complaint was dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim and because the precinct is not a suable entity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 77th Precinct is a proper defendant	Nachmenson sued the 77th Precinct for failing to investigate and for misconduct	The 77th Precinct (NYPD subdivision) is not a separate legal entity and cannot be sued	Dismissed: precinct is non-suable; claim fails as pleaded
Whether failure to investigate gives rise to § 1983 or related claim	Failure to respond to calls and investigate the burglary violated his rights	Police have discretion and no affirmative duty to provide individual protection or investigate every complaint	Dismissed: no actionable duty to individual plaintiff; claim fails
Whether alleged private actor misconduct (Bazel) supports relief	Bazel and cooperating officers are improperly collecting rent and acting unlawfully	Plaintiff failed to allege any enforceable duty or legal right violated by Bazel or Sands	Dismissed: insufficient factual basis; amendment would be futile
Whether pro se status warrants liberal construction permitting amendment	Pro se pleadings should be read broadly to raise strongest arguments	Even liberally construed, claims fail as to entity and substantive law; amendment futile	Dismissed with prejudice as futile; appeal not in good faith

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (no enforceable duty to individual to provide police protection)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (government has no general duty to provide public services to individuals)
Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76 (NYPD is an agency of the City and not a suable entity)
Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 183 (pro se pleadings entitled to liberal construction)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (standard for good-faith certificate on appeal)