Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 28, 2021

Johnson v. City of New York

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:19-cv-08745
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Section 1983Civil RightsCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Michael A. Johnson v. City of New York, Judge Daniels dismissed claims against 28 defendants but ordered service on six others in a civil-rights case.

Who this affects

Michael A. Johnson’s claims against 28 defendants were dismissed at the complaint-screening stage. Claims against the City of New York, Alexis Rodriguez, Wendell Wright, Dexter Freeman, Harriet Burke, and Nancy Coleman remained subject to service, which the court ordered through the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

Michael A. Johnson, representing himself, sued the City of New York and 33 other defendants under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that six defendants used excessive force against him and then falsely arrested him on November 8, 2017, at a New York City Department of Social Services location in the Bronx.

The court reviewed the complaint because Johnson had permission to proceed without paying filing fees. Johnson said eight defendants had been warned in advance about the alleged planned assault, while he alleged no personal involvement by the remaining 20 defendants.

Judge George B. Daniels dismissed Johnson’s claims against those 28 defendants for failing to state a claim. The court ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the City and the five individual defendants allegedly involved in the November 8 events. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Johnson v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-08745
Judge
George Daniels
Date
Jan. 28, 2021

Background

Michael A. Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, on November 8, 2017, at a New York City Department of Social Services location in the Bronx, six defendants assaulted him and then falsely arrested him. The six defendants identified as allegedly involved in those events were the City of New York; Sergeants Alexis Rodriguez and Wendell Wright; Dexter Freeman; Harriet Burke; and Nancy Coleman.

Johnson named 34 defendants in total. He alleged that eight other defendants had been placed on notice months earlier that the six defendants planned to assault him: Steven Banks, Jacqueline Dudley, Peter Uzamere, James Reed, Michael West, Eugene Ross, Herminia Palacio, and Bill de Blasio. He alleged no facts showing that the remaining 20 defendants participated in the November 8 events or knew about them beforehand.

Johnson had previously been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court therefore screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of an action that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. A person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights.

The court found that Johnson’s allegation that the eight defendants had been warned about a possible future assault did not show their personal involvement in violating his constitutional rights. The court also found that Johnson alleged no personal involvement at all by the other 20 defendants.

Ruling and Service

The court dismissed Johnson’s claims against the 28 defendants in those two groups for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court did not dismiss the claims against the City of New York, Alexis Rodriguez, Wendell Wright, Dexter Freeman, Harriet Burke, and Nancy Coleman at this stage. Because Johnson was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and prepare service forms for those six defendants and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve them. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued.

The court also directed Johnson to notify the court if his address changes and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so. Judge George B. Daniels certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.