Johnson v. Ramos

Background

Jinja J.J. Johnson, who was incarcerated at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, brought a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She alleged that correction officers violated her rights during a two-week period from October 14 through October 27, 2020, when she was a convicted prisoner. The court had previously granted her permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

Johnson alleged that an officer issued her an infraction after conflicts with other inmates, including an incident in which three female prisoners approached her while she was using a toilet. She said she had asked to be moved because she felt threatened and had made 311 calls about the officer. She also alleged that Captain Eddy falsely reported that she refused the infraction or refused to sign it. Documents attached to the complaint showed that Johnson was found guilty of five charges and placed in punitive segregated housing. She sought money damages for emotional distress, defamation of character, and the risk of harm connected to alleged failure to protect her from other prisoners.

Screening standard

Because Johnson was a prisoner suing governmental entities and employees, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. It also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally but must still provide a short and plain statement with enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Claims against RMSC and DOC

The court dismissed all claims against the Rose M. Singer Center and the Department of Correction for failure to state a claim. It held that an agency of New York City is not an entity that can be sued under the cited New York City Charter provision.

Excessive force

The court interpreted the complaint as raising an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim based on alleged use of pepper spray. It held that the complaint did not provide enough facts to show either that Johnson suffered an injury from pepper spray or that she was sprayed at all. It also found unclear what happened before the alleged spraying and what led the officer to use force. The court therefore did not allow the claim to proceed as pleaded, but granted Johnson leave to amend it by identifying the defendant who used force and explaining the circumstances.

Failure to protect

The court also interpreted the complaint as raising an Eighth Amendment claim that defendants failed to protect Johnson from an assault by another prisoner. The court found that the complaint did not explain what happened when the three prisoners approached Johnson, whether they assaulted her, which officers allowed them to approach, or how each correction officer personally violated her rights. The court granted leave to amend this claim as well.

Order

Judge Louis L. Stanton granted Johnson leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include the relevant defendants, events, dates or approximate dates, locations, alleged injuries, each defendant’s conduct, and the relief requested. The order stated that if Johnson did not comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.