Johnson v. Alma
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-08093
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Johnson v. Alma, Judge McMahon denied reopening and amendment after an earlier dismissal, while allowing any false-arrest claim in a new action.
Vandyke Johnson’s existing case was not reopened, and he could not amend his complaint in that case. The order left open the possibility of a new false-arrest action against proper defendants, subject to the filing-fee or payment-free-filing requirements stated by the court.
What happened
In Johnson v. Alma, Vandyke Johnson asked the court to reopen his case and let him amend his complaint after telling the court that his criminal case had been dismissed. The court’s earlier order had dismissed his complaint based on limits on federal jurisdiction involving family matters and a rule requiring federal courts to refrain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings.
The court said Johnson could pursue a false-arrest claim against proper defendants by filing a new case. It also advised that a new case would require either the filing fee or a signed request to proceed without paying that fee.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Johnson’s request to reopen the case and amend the complaint. The court also ruled that an appeal from this order could not proceed without paying the appeal fee because it would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Alma · No. 1:19-cv-08093
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 11, 2019
Background
Vandyke Johnson sued Diana Alma, a child protective specialist, David A. Hansell, the Commissioner of Children Services, and the City of New York. In an order dated October 15, 2019, the court dismissed Johnson’s complaint as barred by the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction and the Younger abstention doctrine. The earlier order also denied Johnson’s request for an injunction.
On December 2, 2019, Johnson filed a letter stating that his criminal case had been dismissed. He asked the court to reopen this case and allow him to amend his complaint.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Johnson’s request to reopen the case and amend the complaint. The order did not decide the merits of a false-arrest claim. Instead, it stated that Johnson could file a new action in the court if he wished to pursue a false-arrest claim against proper defendants. Any new action would have to include either the stated filing fee of $400.00 or a completed and signed request to proceed without paying the fee.
The court directed the clerk to send Johnson a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Effect of the Order
The existing case was not reopened, and Johnson was not permitted to amend the complaint in that case. The order stated that he could pursue a new action under the standards described in the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.