Blanding v. Montanez
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09125
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Blanding v. Montanez, Judge McMahon dismissed the civil-rights case because Blanding did not state a claim against either defendant.
Johnny Blanding’s claims against K. Montanez and Washington Square Park were dismissed; the court also declined to allow amendment and denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Blanding v. Montanez, Johnny Blanding, representing himself, sued K. Montanez, whom the court understood to be his parole officer, and Washington Square Park under a civil-rights law. Blanding sought medical treatment and $15 million after an unknown person attacked and injured him in the park, causing him to miss a parole appointment while hospitalized.
The court ruled that Washington Square Park could not be sued under that civil-rights law because a park is not a person. It also ruled that Blanding alleged no facts connecting Montanez to the attack, his injuries, or any violation of Blanding’s federal rights.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and declined to allow an amended complaint because she found the defects could not be fixed. The court also denied Blanding permission to appeal without paying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Blanding v. Montanez · No. 1:19-cv-09125
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 4, 2020
Background
Johnny Blanding appeared without a lawyer and brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He sued K. Montanez, who appeared to be his parole officer, and “Washington Square,” which the court understood to mean Washington Square Park. Blanding sought “correct medical treatment” and $15,000,000 in damages.
Blanding alleged that an unknown person attacked and injured him in Washington Square Park on August 15, 2019, using tools owned by city workers at the park. He alleged that he was hospitalized and needed surgery, which prevented him from attending a parole appointment. He alleged nothing about Montanez’s conduct.
Court’s Analysis
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a complaint filed without paying filing fees if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a complaint must contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, while giving filings by people without lawyers a liberal reading.
As to Washington Square Park, the court held that a park is not a “person” who can be sued under § 1983. It therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against the park for failure to state a claim.
As to Montanez, the court explained that a § 1983 claim against an individual state actor requires facts showing that the individual was directly and personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that Blanding alleged no facts showing that Montanez had anything to do with the attack or injuries, or otherwise violated Blanding’s federally protected rights. It therefore dismissed the claims against Montanez for failure to state a claim.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court declined to give Blanding permission to file an amended complaint because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.