Johnson v. MTA-New York City Transit

Background

Robert W. Johnson filed the lawsuit while representing himself against New York City Transit and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. He challenged the decision about his eligibility for Access-A-Ride, New York City Transit’s paratransit service, and sought punitive damages. The court read his complaint as asserting: (1) Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and (3) a common-law negligence claim.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Magistrate Judge Lehrburger recommended granting the motion, dismissing the due-process claims with prejudice and dismissing the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and negligence claims without prejudice. The parties submitted objections to the recommendation.

Objections and Preclusion Defenses

The defendants objected only to the magistrate judge’s discussion of issue and claim preclusion. These are defenses asserting, respectively, that an issue or claim was already conclusively decided. The magistrate judge had questioned whether the administrative decision about Access-A-Ride eligibility could have preclusive effect because Johnson did not seek review under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 78. The defendants argued that the defenses were not available because there had been no final state-court judgment.

The court rejected that objection. It held that an agency’s official decision could potentially be final for preclusion purposes even when a person does not challenge it in state court. But because the defendants had not raised or briefed those defenses in their motion, the court held that they had waived them for purposes of that motion. The court also found that Johnson’s objections were general and conclusory rather than specific challenges to particular findings.

Ruling

The court reviewed the unchallenged portions of the report and recommendation for clear error and found none. It adopted the report in full and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claim and the negligence claim were dismissed without prejudice, and the court gave Johnson leave to replead those claims. The amended complaint was due by September 25, 2020.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. It also directed the clerk to close the pending motion.