Johnson v. City of New York

Background

Michael A. Johnson II filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He was representing himself and was proceeding without paying filing fees. His original complaint alleged assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, denial of medical care, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. After an earlier order directed him to provide more detail and identify defendants personally involved in the alleged violations, he filed an amended complaint naming approximately 75 defendants.

The amended complaint primarily concerned alleged false arrests on January 27 and January 30, 2019, the removal of Johnson’s service dog, denial of medical care, and a prosecution arising from one of the arrests. Johnson alleged that he was acquitted of all charges on May 3, 2019. He also asserted unrelated allegations involving events from 2014 through 2020 and defendants connected with various New York City agencies.

False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution

The court explained that a false-arrest claim requires facts showing an intentional, nonconsensual, and unjustified confinement. Probable cause to arrest is a complete defense. A malicious-prosecution claim requires facts showing that the defendant initiated or continued a prosecution without probable cause, acted with malice, and that the prosecution ended favorably in a way that affirmatively indicates the plaintiff’s innocence.

The court found that Johnson had not alleged facts showing that the arresting officers violated his rights during the arrest or that the criminal proceeding ended in a manner affirmatively indicating his innocence. He also had not adequately alleged how individual officers were personally involved. The court therefore granted him leave to file a second amended complaint stating facts supporting these claims against Detectives Vargas and Giammo, Inspector Hennessy, Officers Zheng and Risc, and any other defendants personally involved in the January 27, 2019 arrest and later prosecution.

Prosecutorial Immunity

The court dismissed Johnson’s claims against Vance, Clark, Anglade, Smith, and Blount. It held that the allegations appeared to concern conduct within the prosecutors’ official duties and connected with the judicial phase of the criminal process. The court stated that prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil damages claims for such conduct. The court also found that Johnson had not alleged facts showing that ADA Anglade was present during the arrest, despite alleging that she participated in it.

Municipal and Supervisory Defendants

The court dismissed the claims against the City of New York for failure to state a claim. Johnson alleged that the City had policies that caused violations of his rights, but he did not describe those policies or explain how their implementation caused a constitutional violation.

The court also dismissed claims against Mayor de Blasio, Deputy Mayors Fuleihan, Anglin, Palacio, and Thompson; NYPD Commissioner Shea; Deputy Commissioners Tucker and Reznick; former Commissioner Bratton; and the listed supervisory defendants. Johnson did not allege facts showing their direct and personal involvement. The court explained that a supervisor cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because an employee or subordinate allegedly violated someone’s rights.

Bronx Criminal Court and Remaining Defendants

The court dismissed the claims against Bronx Criminal Court. It held that a court is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 and that New York state courts are protected from suit by constitutional immunity. The court stated that Johnson could bring claims arising from events at Bronx Criminal Court in a new civil action.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the court dismissed without prejudice the claims against the remaining listed defendants because those claims did not relate to one another or to the 2019 false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not itself bar refiling those claims, subject to applicable requirements.

Disposition

The court granted Johnson leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days. The filing had to be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include the case number. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Johnson did not comply and could not show good cause, the action would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order on April 2, 2020.