Johnson v. City of New York

Background

Michael A. Johnson II, who represented himself, sued the City of New York, Department of Social Services Commissioner Dexter Freeman, Human Resources Administration officers, and a former Human Resources Administration sergeant under federal civil-rights statutes and New York law. The case concerned Johnson’s arrest on or about November 9, 2017, at the Jerome Center, a Human Resources Administration facility where he was seeking housing assistance.

Johnson alleged six types of claims: excessive force, false arrest, unequal treatment under the Equal Protection Clause, malicious prosecution, a conspiracy to violate his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and violations of New York civil-rights law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party.

A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment on all claims except excessive force. The defendants objected to that recommendation. Johnson requested more time to object, received an extension, and filed no further submission. Judge Daniels reviewed the disputed excessive-force recommendation independently and reviewed the unchallenged recommendations for clear error.

Court’s Analysis

False arrest. The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest Johnson for second-degree menacing. The court relied on undisputed video showing Johnson holding a wooden dowel during an altercation in the facility’s waiting area and elevator bank. Because probable cause defeats a federal false-arrest claim, the court granted summary judgment against that claim.

Equal protection. Johnson alleged that the defendants selectively enforced laws against him because of his race, veteran status, and disability. The court found that he offered only conclusory statements and no facts suggesting that the defendants treated him differently because of a protected characteristic. It therefore granted summary judgment against this claim.

Malicious prosecution. The court concluded that none of the remaining defendants was responsible for starting or continuing the criminal proceeding against Johnson. It also stated that, even if the claim could be brought against these defendants, the officers had probable cause to arrest him. The court therefore dismissed the claim on summary judgment.

Civil-rights conspiracy. Johnson alleged that the defendants agreed to deprive him of equal protection and assault him. The court found no factual allegations supporting an agreement or “meeting of the minds” among the defendants, so it granted summary judgment against the conspiracy claim.

New York civil-rights claims. The court held that Johnson’s state-law claims were time-barred because he filed his notices of claim more than 90 days after the November 9, 2017 incident. The court also noted that the notices were filed after Johnson commenced this action. It adopted the recommendation to grant summary judgment against these claims.

Excessive force. The court applied the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard, which asks whether the force was justified from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene. Johnson testified that officers punched, kicked, and choked him for 15 to 20 minutes and caused serious injuries. The court found that the medical records showed no significant injuries and that the video showed the entire arrest lasted about three minutes and thirty seconds, with Johnson in the elevator for just over two minutes. It concluded that the medical records and video directly contradicted Johnson’s account and that no reasonable jury could find that the officers used unreasonable force.

Disposition

Judge Daniels granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety and rejected the recommendation not to dismiss the excessive-force claim. He adopted the recommendation to dismiss the other claims, directed the Clerk to close the open motion, and closed the case.