Kim v. City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-07022
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Kim v. City of New York: Judge Caproni granted the City’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice.
John D. Kim’s claims against the City of New York were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend; the City’s motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
In Kim v. City of New York, John D. Kim, who was representing himself, alleged that the City violated his First Amendment rights by disabling his Jesus-preaching content on a screen at the Staten Island Whitehall ferry terminal.
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation after finding no clear error. It granted the City’s motion to dismiss because Kim had not alleged enough specific facts to support a First Amendment claim under the federal civil-rights statute or a claim based on a City policy or custom. The court dismissed the case without prejudice and allowed him to amend his complaint.
Judge Valerie Caproni entered the order on July 31, 2025. The court said Kim could use his existing amended complaint or file a second amended complaint by August 21, 2025; it also stated that appellate review was precluded because neither party objected to the recommendation.
The detailed version
- Kim v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-07022
- Valerie Caproni
- July 31, 2025
Background
John D. Kim, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York. His complaint alleged that, while he was “preaching Jesus through the terminal screen,” a City official disabled and decommissioned his preaching from a screen at the Staten Island Whitehall ferry terminal. Kim alleged violations of the First Amendment and other civil rights.
The City moved to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Lehrburger recommended granting the motion and dismissing the case without prejudice, while allowing Kim to amend. After the recommendation was issued, Kim filed a document titled “Objection (Amended Complaint).” The district court determined that the filing did not address the recommendation’s legal or factual analysis and therefore treated the recommendation as unopposed.
Court’s Analysis
Because there were no proper objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found none and adopted the recommendation in full.
The court concluded that, to the extent Kim intended to bring a First Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he had not alleged specific, non-conclusory facts from which the court could reasonably infer a violation of either the Free Exercise Clause or the Free Speech Clause. The court also addressed a claim based on Monell v. Department of Social Services, which requires allegations that a municipality’s policy or custom caused the constitutional violation. The court agreed that Kim had not alleged that a City official acted pursuant to such a policy or custom.
Disposition
The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave to amend. Judge Valerie Caproni explained that, because Kim was representing himself, he might be able to allege additional facts supporting a claim under § 1983 or a municipal-policy claim. Kim could notify Judge Lehrburger that his filed amended complaint should be the operative complaint or file a second amended complaint by August 21, 2025. The City’s response to the operative complaint was due by September 11, 2025. The court also stated that appellate review was precluded because neither party objected to the report and recommendation.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.