Johnson v. City of New York

Background

Vandyke Johnson, who was representing himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of himself and his two minor children. The claims concerned the February 7, 2020 medical examination and questioning of the children for suspected abuse. Johnson alleged that ACS directed the children to be taken to BronxCare Health System and directed BronxCare medical staff to examine them. He alleged that the examination proceeded without a court order or parental consent and that he was physically removed after objecting.

Johnson alleged that BronxCare violated his children’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and deprived him and his children of due process. BronxCare moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses recommended granting BronxCare’s motion. She recommended dismissing Johnson’s due-process claims against BronxCare with prejudice and dismissing the claims brought on behalf of the children without prejudice. Johnson filed objections. Judge Daniels determined that the objections generally repeated arguments already made to Magistrate Judge Moses, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no error and adopted the recommendation in full.

Claims Brought on Behalf of the Children

The court held that Johnson could not assert his children’s Fourth Amendment claims while representing himself. The court explained that Fourth Amendment rights are personal to the person whose rights were allegedly violated. It noted that there may be an exception when a parent is a licensed attorney, but found no evidence that the exception applied. The children’s claims were therefore dismissed without prejudice. Johnson’s request for free counsel to represent his children was denied as improper.

Claims Against BronxCare

The court held that Johnson had not plausibly alleged a federal claim against BronxCare. Under § 1983, a private entity may be liable for constitutional violations by its employees only when the employees acted under an official policy or when the challenged action was taken by a policymaker. The court found that the complaint did not allege facts showing that the examinations resulted from a BronxCare policy or custom of denying or violating minors’ constitutional rights, or that the unidentified examiners were BronxCare policymakers. The court treated Johnson’s assertion that BronxCare had created and continued an unconstitutional policy or custom as a conclusory statement rather than a factual allegation that had to be accepted as true.

Because the federal claims against BronxCare were dismissed, the court also dismissed the state-law claims against BronxCare in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness.

Disposition

The court adopted Magistrate Judge Moses’s report and granted BronxCare’s motion to dismiss. The conclusion states that Johnson’s § 1983 claims against BronxCare were dismissed with prejudice. It states that the state-law claims against BronxCare and the children’s claims were dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close the motion.