Johnson v. Court of Appeals

Background

Jerry L. Johnson, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee, alleged constitutional violations arising from two sets of events. First, he alleged that he served 30 days in punitive segregation at Sing Sing Correctional Facility for a disciplinary infraction, although the finding that he had misbehaved was later administratively reversed. He alleged that he has paranoid schizophrenia, is a practicing Muslim, became suicidal during the segregation, and could not attend Jumah Services. He sought money damages for what he called wrongful confinement.

Second, Johnson alleged that the New York State Court of Appeals mishandled his documents by denying his request to waive filing fees and refusing to accept an untimely motion. The opinion states that the underlying state-court action was not described and only probably related to the reversed disciplinary infraction. Johnson also attached a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute used to challenge certain state custody, in which he alleged that prison officials tampered with his mail.

The court had previously construed Johnson's money-damages claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the statute that allows claims for certain constitutional violations by state actors. It directed him to amend his pleading by providing facts supporting claims involving religious practice, disciplinary due process, and legal mail, and by naming Sing Sing defendants personally involved in the alleged violations. The court also warned that damages claims against state-court judges or employees might be barred by judicial immunity and explained that § 2254 was not the proper vehicle or venue for challenging the 2005 Erie County conviction.

Habeas petition

The court denied the § 2254 petition. It explained that a person seeking habeas relief must be in custody under the conviction or sentence being challenged. Johnson was incarcerated under a 2005 Erie County conviction, not under the 30-day segregation, the New York Court of Appeals proceedings, or the other events described in his filings. The court also explained that habeas relief is used to challenge the fact or duration of custody, not to obtain money damages. Because Johnson sought damages for the alleged wrongful confinement and court-related injuries rather than release from custody, the court held that § 2254 was unavailable for the relief he requested.

Civil-rights complaint

The court dismissed Johnson's complaint under the federal statute governing screening of complaints filed without prepaying fees. Although the court had given Johnson an opportunity to amend his § 1983 claims, it found that his letter did not comply with the earlier order. In particular, he did not name individual defendants at Sing Sing who were personally involved in the alleged events and did not provide enough facts to show that his constitutional rights were violated.

Because Johnson was proceeding without a lawyer, the court granted him one final opportunity to replead his § 1983 claims. The court directed him to submit a document titled “Second Amended Complaint” to the court's Pro Se Intake Unit within 30 days, using docket number 20-CV-5480 (LLS). The order stated that no summons would issue at that time and that, if he failed to comply without showing good cause, the court would enter civil judgment and close the matter.

Other ruling

The court stated that the habeas petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so no certificate of appealability would issue for that petition. The order directed the clerk to mail Johnson a copy and note service on the docket.

Disposition

The habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied. The complaint filed without prepaying fees was dismissed. The court granted leave to file a second amended complaint asserting § 1983 claims.