Kim v. City of New York

Background

John D. Kim, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York. His complaint alleged in one sentence that, while he was “preaching Jesus through the terminal screen,” a City official disabled or decommissioned his preaching from the screen at the Staten Island Whitehall ferry terminal on June 29, 2023. Kim cited the First Amendment and unspecified civil-rights grounds.

The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger for a report and recommendation on the motion.

Claims and analysis

The court interpreted the complaint as asserting claims under the First Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against government actors for violating constitutional rights. The court found no separate, identifiable “civil rights” claim.

The court concluded that the complaint did not adequately plead a violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. It did not explain why the screen was deactivated, whether the action followed a neutral rule that applied generally, whether the action targeted religious expression, or what the screen was and how it furthered Kim’s religious practice.

The court also concluded that the complaint did not adequately plead a Free Speech Clause violation. It lacked facts about the screen’s nature, the purpose and use of the screen, and how its deactivation impeded Kim’s preaching. Without those details, the court could not meaningfully evaluate the type of government forum involved or whether excluding the speech was justified.

The court separately found that the complaint did not sufficiently allege municipal liability. Under the rule commonly known as Monell, a city is not automatically responsible for an employee’s actions merely because the employee works for the city. A plaintiff generally must connect the alleged constitutional violation to a municipal policy or custom. Kim did not allege such a policy or custom, a history of similar incidents, inadequate training or supervision, or policymaking authority by the unidentified official.

Recommendation and next steps

Because the court could imagine additional facts that might support one or more First Amendment claims, it recommended granting the City’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. “Leave to amend” means that Kim would be permitted to submit a revised complaint. The opinion is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to Judge Valerie E. Caproni, not a statement that the district judge had already entered the final ruling. The opinion states that the parties had fourteen days to object.