Johnson v. Performant Recovery Inc.

Background

Robert W. Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, sued Performant Recovery Inc., the State of New York Department of Taxation & Finance, New York State Assessment Receivables, and Adam Quintal. He alleged that the defendants repeatedly called and mailed threatening letters about an alleged debt, lacked authority to threaten or garnish his wages, violated his due-process rights, failed to explain their actions, violated consumer-affairs rules, discriminated against him, and engaged in collection-agency fraud. He also referred generally to fair-debt-collection and civil-rights violations and requested large punitive damages and other relief.

Earlier court orders

The court allowed Johnson to proceed without paying filing fees. He later sought a default judgment, but a magistrate judge recommended denying that request without prejudice because no default had been entered and there was no evidence that the defendants had been served. The court then dismissed the complaint after screening it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), finding that it failed to state a claim, and gave Johnson until January 13, 2020, to file an amended complaint. The court also denied the default-judgment motion without prejudice and ordered Johnson to file a change-of-address notice.

Johnson did not file an amended complaint. Instead, he filed a notice of appeal before a final order had been entered. The court found that the appeal was defective because there was no final order, advised Johnson that the deadline to amend remained in effect, and offered him the alternative of filing a notice that he intended to stand on his original complaint. Johnson filed neither document. The opinion notes that the Ninth Circuit later dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it did not challenge a final order.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it must dismiss a case proceeding without filing fees if the complaint fails to state a claim. It applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint must provide fair notice of the claim and enough factual matter to make the requested relief plausible. Although the court read Johnson’s filing liberally, it could not determine the nature or legal basis of his claims. The complaint did not identify distinct causes of action or state the dates of the events, the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, or each defendant’s role. Johnson also supplied no facts supporting his due-process or discrimination allegations. The court said that, although he might be alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the complaint lacked enough facts to identify even the basic contours of such a claim.

Because Johnson had been told about the deficiencies and given an opportunity to amend, the court considered whether to dismiss the entire action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff does not follow a court order or fails to prosecute the case. The court weighed the public interest in resolving cases promptly, its need to manage its docket, possible prejudice to the defendants, the policy favoring decisions on the merits, and less severe alternatives. It found dismissal appropriate because Johnson gave no explanation for failing to amend, the merits could not be reached without an amended complaint, and the court had already provided notice, warnings, and additional time.

Disposition

Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice to filing a paid complaint. The clerk was directed to close the file and terminate pending matters. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).