Komatsu v. The City of New York

Background

Towaki Komatsu, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988, as well as New York State law. He alleged that the defendants unlawfully prevented him from attending three public meetings. The court had previously granted him permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

Screening of Claims Against James Clynes

Komatsu named James Clynes, identified as a court attorney to New York State Supreme Court Judge Alexander Tisch. Komatsu alleged that Judge Tisch had unlawfully delayed ruling on an order to show cause in a state-court matter. He also alleged that Clynes was trying to be elected to the bench, sat in the front row at a September 26, 2017 town hall meeting from which Komatsu was excluded, applauded the mayor, knew Komatsu had been excluded, and did nothing to prevent that exclusion.

The court explained that judges generally have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities. That protection can also apply to nonjudicial officers whose actions are functionally comparable to a judge’s or are closely connected to an ongoing judicial proceeding. The court stated that, if Komatsu was suing Clynes for actions taken as Judge Tisch’s court attorney in connection with the state-court matter, Clynes was immune from suit for those actions.

Separately, the court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires allegations that a constitutional or federal statutory right was violated by a person acting under state authority, along with facts showing that defendant’s direct and personal involvement. The court held that the allegations about Clynes’s presence at the meeting, applause, knowledge of Komatsu’s exclusion, and failure to act did not suggest that Clynes was personally involved in a constitutional violation. Even assuming those allegations were true, the court concluded that they failed to state a claim against Clynes under § 1983.

Service on Named Defendants

Because Komatsu was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare service forms and summonses for the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and the named officials and individuals listed in the order. The U.S. Marshals Service was directed to serve those defendants.

The court extended the deadline for service to 90 days after the summonses were issued. It stated that, if service was not completed within that period, Komatsu should request an extension. The court also warned that the action could be dismissed if Komatsu failed to notify the court of an address change.

John Doe Defendants

The complaint also named unidentified police officers connected to incidents on September 26, 27, and 28, 2017. The court directed the New York City Law Department, as the attorney and agent for the New York City Police Department, to identify those unnamed defendants and provide service addresses within 60 days.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Komatsu was required to file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants. The order stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. After filing, the amended complaint would be screened, and the court could issue further service instructions.

Disposition

The order found that the allegations against Clynes failed to state a § 1983 claim and addressed his potential immunity. It also ordered service on the listed named defendants and required the identification and later naming of the John Doe defendants. The opinion’s conclusion does not expressly use a separate dismissal term for the claims against Clynes.