Johnson v. The City of New York
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-03091
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnson v. The City of New York, Judge Rearden dismissed federal claims without prejudice, allowed amendment, and declined state-law jurisdiction.
Glenn Johnson’s federal claims were dismissed without prejudice, and he was allowed to amend. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over his state-law claims and allowed him to replead them if he cures the federal-claim deficiencies. The City of New York and Aishah McCutchen obtained dismissal of the federal claims.
What happened
In Glenn Johnson v. The City of New York, Glenn Johnson, representing himself, alleged that inmates physically assaulted him with a weapon and caused severe, permanent injuries. He brought federal constitutional claims and state-law negligence claims against the City, several correction officers, and a captain.
A magistrate judge recommended granting the City and Aishah McCutchen’s motion to dismiss all federal claims, dismissing those claims without prejudice, and allowing Johnson to amend. The recommendation also advised declining to decide the state-law claims unless Johnson later corrected the problems with his federal claims. Johnson did not object.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden found no clear error and adopted the recommendation. She granted the motion to dismiss all federal claims, dismissed those claims without prejudice, allowed Johnson to amend, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims while allowing him to replead them if he cures the federal-claim deficiencies.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-03091
- Rearden
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Glenn Johnson, acting without a lawyer, sued the City of New York, the New York City Department of Corrections, Correction Officers Aishah McCutchen, Ravelo, and Cadet, and Captain Weekes. The court described his claims as including equal protection, lack of due process, and deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment, based on an alleged assault by several inmates. Johnson also appeared to assert state-law claims for negligence and negligent hiring, training, retention, or supervision.
The court had previously dismissed the Department of Corrections because it could not be sued in the action and directed the City’s Law Department to identify an unnamed correction officer. Johnson later filed an amended complaint adding Weekes, Ravelo, and Cadet. The City and McCutchen moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis recommended granting the motion to dismiss all federal claims, dismissing those claims without prejudice, and allowing Johnson to amend. She also recommended that the court decline to exercise jurisdiction—its authority to decide—the state-law claims, while allowing Johnson to replead them if he corrected the deficiencies in his federal claims.
The parties were given fourteen days to object. Johnson filed no objections and did not request more time. Judge Rearden therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The opinion states that Johnson’s failure to object waived further judicial review of the magistrate judge’s decision.
Ruling
Judge Rearden adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court granted the City and McCutchen’s motion to dismiss all federal claims. It dismissed Johnson’s federal claims without prejudice and granted him leave to amend. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims but allowed Johnson to replead them if he cured the deficiencies in his federal claims. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion docket entry.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.