Johnson v. Court of Appeals

Background

Jerry L. Johnson filed the complaint without a lawyer while incarcerated. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. He alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights. The complaint stated that, after he served 30 days in punitive segregation, the underlying misconduct determination was administratively reversed. Johnson alleged that he has paranoid schizophrenia, that he became suicidal while in segregation, and that he was not allowed to attend Jumah Services. He named the Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility, although he was then incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility and the complaint did not allege what that superintendent personally did. The court assumed the events occurred at Sing Sing, but the opinion said the handwritten complaint was difficult to read.

Johnson also alleged that the New York Court of Appeals mishandled his filings by denying his request to waive or defer filing fees, refusing to accept an untimely motion, and returning a motion for an extension of time that the court later said it had not received. He did not clearly explain the underlying state-court matter. Attachments included a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a June 11, 2019 New York Court of Appeals order. Johnson also alleged that prison officials tampered with his mail.

Screening standard

Because Johnson was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. It also had to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, while requiring enough facts to make a claim plausible under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Civil-rights claims

The court treated the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for violating federal rights while acting under state law. A plaintiff must allege both a federal-rights violation and conduct by a person acting under state authority. The plaintiff must also allege each defendant’s direct and personal involvement; a person generally cannot be held liable merely because that person supervised someone else.

The court said Johnson’s allegations about punitive segregation, its effect on his mental health, and interference with his religious practice could potentially support § 1983 claims. But he did not name individuals personally involved in those events, and he made no allegations against the superintendent named in the complaint. Because Johnson was representing himself, the court granted him leave to amend so he could identify proper defendants and explain their involvement.

Mail and access-to-courts claim

The court found that Johnson’s allegations about tampered mail did not state a viable claim that he was denied access to the courts. He did not identify the prison employees involved, explain the underlying legal matter clearly, or provide enough facts to show that the alleged conduct caused actual injury to a potentially valid claim. The court allowed him to include additional supporting facts in an amended complaint.

Claim against the New York Court of Appeals

The court dismissed Johnson’s claims against the New York Court of Appeals. It held that a court is not a “person” who can be sued under § 1983 and that New York state courts are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The opinion also noted that judges generally have immunity for actions within their judicial responsibilities, as do certain court employees performing functions closely connected to judicial proceedings.

Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

The complaint included a petition under § 2254, a procedure for challenging state-court custody on federal-law grounds. The court stated that, if Johnson filed that petition concerning the time he spent in punitive segregation, the petition was denied because the sentence was imposed administratively, Johnson had already served it, and the sentence had already been reversed. The court stated that Johnson could seek damages under § 1983 instead.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court granted Johnson leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to name the individuals involved in the alleged violations, identify them in both the caption and the statement of claim, and provide facts explaining what each defendant did or failed to do. The court permitted use of “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” when a name was unknown, but warned that doing so would not stop the three-year limitations period.

The amended complaint also had to provide, as much as possible, relevant names and titles, dates, locations, facts, injuries, and requested relief. It would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any claims or facts Johnson wanted to preserve had to be included again. The court ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Johnson a copy of the order. No summons would issue at that time. If Johnson failed to comply within the permitted period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.