Komatsu v. The City of New York

Background

The court considered three letters from pro se plaintiff Towaki Komatsu dated October 23, October 26, and October 28, 2020. Komatsu asked for three forms of relief: appointment of a pro bono attorney, permission to file another amended complaint, and designation of another case, No. 20 Civ. 7502, as related to this case.

Request for appointed counsel

The court explained that it cannot require an attorney to represent a pro se litigant in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, it may ask the court’s Pro Bono Panel to consider representing an indigent litigant. The court must first assess whether the claims appear likely to have merit and may then consider whether the litigant can handle the case without assistance.

Because the case was at an early stage, the court could not conclude that Komatsu’s claims were likely to have merit. It therefore denied without prejudice his request for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning the request could potentially be renewed later. The court also stated that Komatsu could seek advice from the New York Legal Assistance Group.

Request to amend the complaint

The court noted that Komatsu had already amended his complaint once as a matter of course. Although amendments are generally allowed freely, the court may deny permission when an amendment is unduly delayed, brought in bad faith, would prejudice the opposing party, or would be futile.

Komatsu did not specifically identify the claims or defendants he wanted to add. He said only that the proposed claims involved some of the same defendants and conduct. The court found that this information was insufficient to determine whether amendment was proper. It also stated that adding claims already decided, or that would be decided, in another case could create duplicative litigation or relitigate matters covered by an earlier judgment.

The court therefore denied without prejudice Komatsu’s request to amend. It said he would need to provide, at a minimum, the substance of the proposed claims, the people or entities against whom they were asserted, and his reasons for not bringing them earlier.

The court clarified that its ruling did not affect Komatsu’s previously granted permission to file a second amended complaint naming the John Doe defendant within thirty days after learning that defendant’s identity.

Request to designate another case as related

Komatsu asked the court to designate No. 20 Civ. 7502 as related to this case. The court stated that it had already accepted that case as related on October 27, 2020. It therefore denied as moot that request because no further ruling was necessary.

Disposition

Judge Ramos also stated that the remaining arguments in Komatsu’s letters were without merit. The order denied without prejudice the requests for appointed counsel and permission to amend, and denied as moot the request to designate No. 20 Civ. 7502 as related.