Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-10942
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Judge McMahon administratively closed the action and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Towaki Komatsu, whose action was administratively closed and whose complaint was subject to the attached order’s instruction to strike it and its requirements for seeking permission to refile.
What happened
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, the court addressed a newly filed complaint connected to an earlier consolidated case. The attached order stated that Towaki Komatsu had filed the complaint without first seeking permission, certifying compliance, or following a 25-page limit.
The attached order instructed the Clerk to strike the complaint and denied Komatsu’s requests concerning the earlier case. It allowed Komatsu to seek permission to refile by submitting a one-page motion and a one-page certification, with any new complaint limited to 25 pages.
Judge McMahon administratively closed this action based on the attached order. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10942
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 7, 2021
Background
The action was filed by Towaki Komatsu against The City of New York and other defendants. Judge McMahon’s January 7, 2021 order referred to an attached January 5, 2021 order by Judge Edgardo Ramos in a related consolidated proceeding. That earlier order addressed Komatsu’s letters and a complaint filed in this action.
Rulings in the Attached Order
Judge Ramos denied the requests made in Komatsu’s letters, including requests to reconsider filing restrictions, immediately file an amended complaint, and exceed a 10-page limit for a reply. The order stated that Komatsu had already amended the complaint once as a matter of right and that the page limit was reasonable.
The attached order also stated that Komatsu filed an 82-page complaint in this action without first seeking permission to start a new case, without submitting the required certification, and in violation of a 25-page limit. It instructed the Clerk to strike the complaint. The order stated that Komatsu could seek permission to refile by submitting a one-page motion explaining why a new action was appropriate and a one-page statement, made under penalty of perjury, addressing the required certifications. Any new complaint would be limited to 25 pages.
Disposition
Judge McMahon directed the Clerk to administratively close this action in light of Judge Ramos’s attached order. Administrative closure is a docket-management action; the January 7 order did not decide the underlying claims. Judge McMahon also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.