Komatsu v. The City of New York

Background

Towaki Komatsu, representing himself, filed nine related cases that were consolidated. He sued the City of New York, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, police officers, elected officials, and other defendants. His complaints alleged that defendants violated his rights at town halls, resource fairs, legislative hearings, City Council meetings, and a press conference. He alleged restrictions on entering events, speaking, distributing materials, and giving testimony, along with retaliation and other constitutional and state-law violations.

The complaints covered events beginning in 2017 and included two events in 2019. Together, they totaled 1,713 pages and asserted approximately 200 claims against 125 defendants. The City and Vance moved to dismiss.

Rule 8 dismissal of the complaints

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to give a short and plain statement that provides defendants fair notice of the claims. The court held that all nine complaints violated this requirement. Their length, repetitive allegations, unrelated material, argumentative language, numerous images, and extensive video links made it difficult to determine what happened, which defendant was responsible, and which facts supported each claim.

The court therefore dismissed all nine complaints under Rule 8, without prejudice to filing one consolidated amended complaint. The court allowed Komatsu to replead claims that were not dismissed with prejudice, but required the amended complaint to be a single document filed in the lead case, no more than 50 pages excluding exhibits, and filed by August 30, 2021.

Claims that were dismissed with prejudice

The court dismissed with prejudice all substantive and procedural due process claims. It concluded that the alleged restrictions on attending or speaking at public events did not identify a property interest supporting procedural due process, and that the allegations did not identify a protected interest or sufficiently extreme conduct supporting substantive due process.

The court also dismissed with prejudice all claims for abuse of process, because Komatsu did not allege that defendants used legal process against him. It dismissed all Fifth Amendment claims because Komatsu sued City and other nonfederal defendants, making the Fourteenth Amendment—not the Fifth Amendment—the potentially relevant due-process provision.

The court dismissed with prejudice the state-law claims based on the 2017 events as untimely under New York’s one-year-and-90-day period for claims against municipalities and their employees. It also dismissed with prejudice defamation and assault claims based on the 2019 events because Komatsu did not allege those claims arose from those events. The court dismissed with prejudice the remaining 2019 claims for unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, public and private nuisance, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and spoliation of evidence.

The court treated the spoliation claims as claims under New York’s Freedom of Information Law because New York does not recognize spoliation of evidence as an independent tort. It dismissed those claims with prejudice because the challenges were brought after the applicable administrative and court deadlines, and because the statute did not provide a private claim for money damages in this action.

The court also dismissed with prejudice claims under New York’s General Business Law § 349, New York’s Open Meetings Law, and the Hatch Act. It concluded that the § 349 allegations did not involve consumer-oriented conduct, that Open Meetings Law claims belonged in a specialized state-court proceeding and were not appropriate for supplemental jurisdiction, and that the Hatch Act provides no private right to sue for enforcement.

Claims that could be repleaded against the City and other defendants

The court allowed Komatsu to replead First Amendment claims and First Amendment retaliation claims. The court explained that the public meetings generally were limited public forums, meaning the government could impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions within the forum’s defined purpose. Komatsu would need to allege facts showing that his speech fell within the relevant forum’s permitted subject or category, and retaliation claims would need to identify the protected conduct, the retaliatory motivation, and resulting injury.

The court also allowed Komatsu to replead selective-enforcement claims, but warned that he needed to identify similarly situated people who engaged in comparable conduct and were treated differently. It allowed claims for failure to intervene, municipal liability under the rule commonly called Monell, Fourth Amendment violations, and conspiracy to violate civil rights to be repleaded because the court could not determine at that stage that those claims were frivolous. The court instructed Komatsu to allege each defendant’s personal involvement rather than merely alleging that a defendant was present.

Claims against Cyrus Vance

The court dismissed all claims against Vance with prejudice. Komatsu alleged that Vance failed to intervene or prosecute City officials after Komatsu spoke with him at a New York City Bar Association event. The court held that Komatsu did not plausibly allege that Vance personally observed or had reason to know about a constitutional violation, or that Vance had a realistic opportunity to prevent one. The court also held that decisions not to prosecute were protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity, and that the requested injunction seeking Vance’s removal from office or permanent employment ban was frivolous on the allegations presented.

Other orders and final disposition

The court granted both dismissal motions. Claims dismissed with prejudice could not be included in the amended complaint. The claims allowed to be repleaded could be brought only against defendants other than Vance. The court warned that failure to follow the order, including the page limit and filing requirements, could lead to dismissal with prejudice. It also warned Komatsu that continued personal attacks, harassing language, repeated frivolous injunction requests, or requests concerning matters or people outside the case could lead to sanctions, including dismissal.