Johnson v. State of New York Corporate

Background

Michael A. Johnson, who was representing himself, sued defendants under Sections 1983, 1985, and 1988. He alleged a broad conspiracy involving the New York City Police Department, the Manhattan and Bronx District Attorneys’ Offices, the New York State Unified Court System, the City of New York, the New York City Department of Social Services, and the New York City Housing Authority. His allegations concerned events dating from 2017 through 2023, including alleged false arrests, malicious prosecutions, assaults, discrimination, denial of equal protection, judicial and attorney misconduct, and interference with or attempted removal of his service dog. He requested money damages.

Johnson had previously been allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance. The court therefore screened the complaint under the statute requiring dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting relief.

Reasons for dismissal

The court held that the complaint did not satisfy the short-and-plain-statement requirement. It contained disjointed and confusing allegations, unrelated incidents, legal conclusions, and pleadings from other lawsuits. As a result, the court could not determine which specific events supported which claims or give defendants fair notice of the claims. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief.

The court also ruled that claims arising before May 20, 2021 appeared untimely because the applicable limitations period for Johnson’s Sections 1983 and 1985 claims was generally three years. The court said Johnson had not alleged facts supporting an exception that would pause or extend that period. It noted that some allegations duplicated claims in an earlier related proceeding, identified by docket number 19-CV-8745, and dismissed those duplicative claims without prejudice to the claims in that earlier proceeding. Because Johnson was representing himself, the court allowed him to address timeliness and explain any basis for extending the limitations period when filing an amended complaint.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the State of New York, the New York State Unified Court System, and the Manhattan and Bronx District Attorneys’ Offices because those defendants were protected by state immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. It dismissed claims against the New York Police Department because the department was not a separate suable entity. It dismissed the claims against New York City because Johnson did not allege facts showing that a city policy, practice, or custom caused a constitutional violation.

The court also dismissed the claims under Section 1985 because Johnson alleged no specific facts showing an agreement, how the alleged conspiracy began or operated, or acts carried out to advance it. The Section 1988 claim also failed because that statute allows attorney-fee recovery for a prevailing party in qualifying civil-rights litigation, and self-represented litigants cannot recover those fees.

Disposition and amendment requirements

The court dismissed the complaint and all claims against the named defendants for failure to state a claim for relief and because certain defendants were immune. It granted Johnson 30 days to file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint must clearly identify timely claims, explain the facts supporting alleged false-arrest, assault, or malicious-prosecution claims, and state how each defendant personally participated. If Johnson names New York City, he must allege facts showing that a city policy, practice, or custom caused the alleged constitutional violation. He must also explain why any claim arising before May 2021 should be treated as timely.

The court directed the clerk to terminate four defendants listed in the order: State of New York Corporate, a counties entity; State Judicial Systems of New York and City Legal system; New York Police; and District Attorney’s Bronx/Manhattan. It stated that if Johnson did not timely amend or show cause for not doing so, the clerk would be directed to enter a judgment dismissing the action. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed that the matter remain open until a civil judgment was entered.