Johnson v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC
- Figueredo
- 1:23-cv-01156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Johnson v. Starwood, Judge Figueredo denied motions seeking an investigation, an arrest, and obstruction-of-justice relief because discovery rules did not authorize them and Section 1503 creates no civil claim.
Joseph Johnson, whose motions seeking an investigation, an arrest, and relief under the federal obstruction-of-justice statute were denied; Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, which was the opposing defendant.
What happened
In Johnson v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, Joseph Johnson asked the court to investigate a general manager, arrest that person, and address the alleged firing of witness Peter Roman.
Judge Figueredo explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 governs discovery—information parties obtain about claims and defenses—and did not authorize the investigation Johnson requested. The court also said that the federal obstruction-of-justice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1503, does not create a civil claim.
The court denied Johnson’s motions at ECF Nos. 124 and 126, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate those motions. The order was entered by Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-01156
- Figueredo
- Feb. 18, 2025
Background
Joseph Johnson filed a motion asking the court to conduct “a full investigation” of a general manager for allegedly firing witness Peter Roman and to arrest the general manager for breaking the law. Johnson cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. He also appeared to seek relief for “obstruction of justice” under 18 U.S.C. § 1503.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Rule 26 governs discovery, meaning the process by which parties obtain relevant, nonprivileged information about claims and defenses. The court concluded that Johnson’s requested investigation did not appear to relate to a claim or defense in the case. In addition, the court stated that it could not conduct the investigation Johnson demanded.
The court further held that Section 1503, the federal obstruction-of-justice statute, does not provide a private civil cause of action. In other words, that statute does not allow a person to bring a civil claim seeking relief under it.
Disposition
The court denied Johnson’s motions at ECF Nos. 124 and 126. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions on the docket. The opinion did not state that either motion was granted in part, and it did not use a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court denied requests involving discovery and a claimed statutory civil remedy without deciding the underlying merits of the lawsuit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.