Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-00204
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Komatsu v. City of New York: Judge McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice for violating court-ordered filing restrictions.
Towaki Komatsu’s action was dismissed without prejudice; the opinion does not resolve his underlying claims against the City of New York, Mayor de Blasio, or the other city officials.
What happened
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Towaki Komatsu sued the City, the mayor, and other city officials over his exclusion from a January 8, 2018 public meeting. He filed the case without a lawyer after earlier related lawsuits had been consolidated.
In the earlier related proceeding, the court required Komatsu to obtain permission before filing another case about exclusion from public meetings and limited any new complaint to 25 pages. He did not seek the required permission, and his 134-page complaint exceeded the page limit.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed this action without prejudice because Komatsu did not follow those filing requirements. She also found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-00204
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
Towaki Komatsu, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought this action against the City of New York, Mayor de Blasio, and other city officials. He asserted claims arising from his exclusion from a January 8, 2018 public meeting with the mayor.
The opinion states that Komatsu had filed nine actions against the City, city officials, and New York City police officers concerning denial of access to public meetings. Those actions were consolidated in a prior related proceeding, No. 20-CV-7046, before Judge Edgardo Ramos.
Filing restrictions
On December 15, 2020, Judge Ramos restricted Komatsu’s ability to file new civil actions in the district court against city officials concerning his exclusion from public meetings. Before filing a new action, Komatsu had to submit a one-page motion seeking permission and explaining why a new action was appropriate instead of an amended filing in the consolidated case. He also had to submit a one-page statement under penalty of perjury confirming that the proposed claims were not frivolous or brought in bad faith, were not filed for an improper purpose, and complied with court rules and orders. Any new complaint allowed under that order could not exceed 25 pages.
The opinion states that Komatsu did not seek permission to file this action. It also states that the complaint was 134 pages long. Komatsu had sought permission to submit a supplemental pleading in the consolidated case, but Judge Ramos denied that request on February 2, 2021. Komatsu filed this action on January 7, 2021, before that denial.
Ruling and effect
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to comply with the December 15, 2020 order in the prior related proceeding. The opinion does not decide the merits of Komatsu’s claims about exclusion from the public meeting. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Komatsu and note service on the docket.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.