Johnson v. Wroten
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-04719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnson v. Wroten, Judge Cronan dismissed Johnson’s claims against prosecutor Myles Ashong as immune and requested service waivers from listed police officers.
David Johnson’s claims for money damages against Assistant District Attorney Myles Ashong were dismissed because the court found Ashong immune from that relief. The order also concerned service of summons on Officers Herbert Wroten, Charles Morro, Luis Diaz, Albert Vitarelli, Danielle Venuto, Keith Kealy, and Lauren Helmeset.
What happened
In Johnson v. Wroten, David Johnson, who is detained at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, sued under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged false arrest and malicious prosecution and sought money damages. He represented himself and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court dismissed Johnson’s claims against Assistant District Attorney Myles Ashong. It ruled that prosecutors are protected from damages lawsuits for actions connected to prosecuting a criminal case and court proceedings. The court also directed that several named police officers be asked to waive formal service of the lawsuit.
Judge John P. Cronan entered the order on July 15, 2025. The order dismissed the claims against Ashong because he was immune from the requested monetary relief and directed court notification and mailing of the order to Johnson.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Wroten · No. 1:25-cv-04719
- John Cronan
- July 15, 2025
Background
David Johnson brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain claims for constitutional violations by state or local officials. Johnson alleged false arrest and malicious prosecution and sought money damages. The opinion states that he was detained at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, represented himself, and had been granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Screening standard
Because Johnson was proceeding without prepaying filing fees and was incarcerated, the court reviewed the complaint under federal statutes requiring dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must interpret a self-represented person’s pleadings liberally and consider the strongest claims reasonably suggested by those pleadings.
Claims against ADA Ashong
Johnson sued Myles Ashong, an Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. The court explained that prosecutors have absolute immunity from civil damages claims for conduct within their official duties that is closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court applied that rule because Johnson’s claims were based on actions taken in prosecuting him and associated with criminal proceedings. The court therefore dismissed Johnson’s claims against Ashong because they sought monetary relief from a defendant immune from that relief and consequently were frivolous under the cited screening statutes.
Service of process
The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Police Department and the New York City Law Department electronically. It requested that Officers Herbert Wroten, Charles Morro, Luis Diaz, Albert Vitarelli, Danielle Venuto, Keith Kealy, and Lauren Helmeset waive service of summons. The order does not state a separate merits ruling on Johnson’s claims against those officers.
Disposition
The court dismissed Johnson’s claims against ADA Myles Ashong. It also directed the specified notifications, requested waivers of service from the listed officers, and directed that a copy of the order and an information package be mailed to Johnson.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.