Johnson-El v. Obrotka
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-03726
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Jeremiah Johnson-El v. Jim Obrotka, Magistrate Judge Wang recommended that Judge Engelmayer deny Johnson-El’s motion and dismiss the case.
Jeremiah Johnson-El, whose motion was recommended for denial and whose claims were recommended for dismissal with prejudice; the defendants, who were never served or appeared, would not be required to litigate the case if the recommendation were adopted.
What happened
Jeremiah Johnson-El v. Jim Obrotka began when Johnson-El filed a document seeking to bring a Warwick, New York, municipal citation into federal court and asking for an order stopping alleged harassment and enforcement of the citation. He also sought money damages, but the defendants were never served and did not appear.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang found that the filing could not properly be brought in federal court because the underlying citation involved state law and the filing did not establish another basis for federal jurisdiction. She also found that Johnson-El had not served the defendants, had not filed a timely response to the court’s order to explain the case, and had not pursued the case.
Judge Engelmayer was the district judge designated to consider objections to Magistrate Judge Wang’s recommendation. Wang recommended denying Johnson-El’s motion, dismissing all claims with prejudice, and closing the outstanding motions; the recommendation states that objections were due within 14 days.
The detailed version
- Johnson-El v. Obrotka · No. 1:24-cv-03726
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Jeremiah Johnson-El, representing himself, filed a document titled a “Notice of Removal” concerning a $500 civil citation issued by the Town of Warwick for “bringing in fill & excavation of fill on property” in violation of a town ordinance. The filing also functioned as a complaint because it sought money damages from the defendants. The docket listed Jim Obrotka as the defendant, while the filing also identified the Warwick Town Hall Court and Warwick Buildings Department as defendants.
Johnson-El separately filed an unsigned request seeking to stop alleged harassment, stalking, photographing, and enforcement of the citation. He later filed a motion titled “Notice of Motion to Enforce Injunctive Order Expeditiously,” referring to that request and asking the court to enforce what he described as a subpoena. No subpoena appeared on the docket.
Procedural history
On August 14, 2025, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang ordered Johnson-El to explain in writing why his motion should not be denied and why the case should not be dismissed for failure to properly serve the defendants or prosecute the case. The order also questioned whether the court had authority to hear the dispute and warned that failing to respond could provide an additional basis for dismissal. Johnson-El did not respond by the August 25 deadline.
The report states that the defendants had not been served, had not appeared, and had not waived service. Johnson-El had also taken no action in the case after filing the November 19, 2024, unsigned request.
Reasons for the recommendation
Magistrate Judge Wang recommended denying the request for expedited enforcement because the record did not provide a basis for issuing the requested relief without notice to the opposing parties. Because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the dispute, she recommended that Johnson-El not be allowed to file the motion again.
The report also concluded that the filing should be dismissed for failure to serve the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. It explained that a plaintiff cannot remove a case from state court to federal court. Even if Johnson-El’s filing were treated as an attempt to remove the citation, the report concluded that removal was improper because the federal court lacked original jurisdiction.
The report found no federal-question jurisdiction because the citation involved state law and did not identify an applicable exception. It also found no diversity jurisdiction because Johnson-El appeared to reside in New York and the identified defendants were New York entities or a person identified as a building inspector in Warwick, New York. The report additionally stated that the removal was procedurally untimely because it was not filed within 30 days after receipt of the initial pleading or summons.
Recommendation and objections
Magistrate Judge Wang recommended that all of Johnson-El’s claims be DISMISSED with prejudice, that his motion be denied, and that all outstanding motions be closed. The report relied on the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to serve the defendants, untimely removal, failure to respond to the order to explain the case, and failure to prosecute.
The document is a report and recommendation addressed to the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer, rather than a statement that Judge Engelmayer had adopted the recommendation. It states that written objections were due within 14 days after receipt, with a possible additional three days for service by mail, and warns that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.