Johnson v. Cuomo

Background

Robert W. Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Governor Andrew Cuomo; Superintendent Linda A. Lacewell; the New York State Department of Financial Services; Victoria Fire & Casualty Company; Nationwide; individuals; government agencies; police entities; and other listed defendants. His claims arose from the denial of an insurance claim.

Johnson alleged that, after receiving a September 24, 2019 notice from the New York State Department of Financial Services concerning his consumer complaint, his “civil rights were not guaranteed.” He claimed that defendants had discriminated against him by denying his insurance, civil, constitutional, and human rights. He sought injunctive relief and money damages.

The documents attached to the complaint showed that Johnson had been in a car accident on January 28, 2017. He submitted an insurance claim to Victoria Fire in March 2019, and the claim was denied on July 23, 2019. Rather than appealing the denial to the insurance company, he filed a consumer complaint with the Department of Financial Services. That agency informed him that it could verify whether the insurer relied on an independent medical examiner’s report but could not decide questions about the doctor’s professional or medical opinion.

Legal standard

Because Johnson was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also had to dismiss the case if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts interpret filings by people without lawyers liberally, those filings still must provide a short and plain statement supporting a plausible claim.

Court’s analysis

The court construed Johnson’s constitutional and civil-rights allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That law provides a remedy when a person acting under state authority deprives someone of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. The court held that private parties generally are not liable under § 1983 and found that Johnson alleged no facts showing that any private defendant acted under state authority. His constitutional and statutory claims against the private defendants therefore had to be dismissed.

The court also addressed Johnson’s discrimination, due-process, and other civil-rights allegations against government actors. It found no facts suggesting that anyone discriminated against Johnson for an impermissible reason, such as race or nationality. It further found that he had not alleged a due-process violation because the Department of Financial Services had given him an opportunity to present his claims and objections. The court concluded that Johnson had not alleged a deprivation of any federally protected right.

The court also described this case as part of Johnson’s pattern of filing numerous cases related to the 2017 accident, many of which had been dismissed as frivolous or meritless. The court stated that he had continued filing actions against people and entities connected to his efforts to obtain relief, despite earlier warnings about further frivolous or vexatious litigation. The court nevertheless dismissed this action based on the failure to state a claim.

Disposition

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Johnson’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.