Johnson v. Wolf

Background

Robert W. Johnson filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The court had granted that request before reviewing the complaint. Johnson sued Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe; a Jane Doe case manager for the Second Circuit; the Second Circuit Court of Appeals; its mail department; Judges Colleen McMahon and Louis L. Stanton; Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq.; Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.; the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York; the U.S. Postal Service; the New York State Office of the Attorney General; and Progressive Insurance Company.

Johnson alleged, among other things, civil-rights violations, mail fraud, tampering with court documents, judicial misconduct, bad faith, and failures involving his earlier court and appellate proceedings. He sought $101 trillion in punitive damages, $500 billion in monetary sanctions for civil-rights violations, changes to court proceedings, new mail policies, an apology, and other relief. The court noted that Johnson had filed numerous other actions in federal courts concerning a January 28, 2017 car accident and Progressive.

Legal Framework

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint filed without paying fees if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court must also dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts interpret self-represented complaints generously, those complaints still must provide enough factual allegations to make a claim legally plausible.

Because Johnson alleged constitutional violations by federal employees, the court interpreted the complaint as asserting claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the implied cause of action for certain constitutional claims against federal officials.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court dismissed the claims against Judges McMahon and Stanton under absolute judicial immunity. That doctrine generally protects judges from damages claims based on actions taken within their judicial responsibilities. The court found that Johnson’s claims arose from the judges’ rulings and actions while handling his cases, and that those actions were within their judicial roles and jurisdiction. It also treated claims barred by absolute judicial immunity as frivolous for purposes of the fee-waiver statute.

The court dismissed the claims against Wolfe and Jane Doe under absolute immunity for nonjudicial officers whose functions are closely connected to judicial proceedings. Although the allegations were difficult to understand, Johnson did not allege that these defendants acted outside the functions associated with their Second Circuit positions. The court therefore held that immunity foreclosed those claims.

The court dismissed the claims against Torrance, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, its mail department, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and the U.S. Postal Service based on sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents suits against the federal government and its agencies unless immunity has been waived. The court discussed the Federal Tort Claims Act, which can waive immunity for certain tort claims, but found no indication that Johnson had first completed the required administrative process.

The court dismissed the claims against Underwood and the New York State Office of the Attorney General under the Eleventh Amendment. It held that those defendants had not waived their immunity and that Congress had not removed that immunity through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court dismissed the claim against Progressive for failure to state a claim because Johnson named Progressive as a defendant but did not assert any claim against it in this complaint. The court concluded that amendment would be futile and therefore did not give Johnson permission to amend.

Order to Show Cause and Disposition

The complaint was dismissed as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, and for seeking monetary relief from defendants immune from that relief. The court directed Johnson to submit, within 30 days, a declaration explaining why he should not be barred from filing future actions in this court without paying fees unless he first obtained the court’s permission. The court stated that the restriction would take effect if he failed to submit the declaration or failed to show good cause. Thus, the order directed Johnson to respond but did not itself impose the future-filing restriction.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order on November 5, 2019.