Sanders v. Doe
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-05525
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Sanders v. Johnson, Judge Liman granted Richard Johnson’s motion to dismiss Robert Sanders’s civil-rights claims with prejudice.
Robert Sanders’s claims against Richard Johnson were dismissed with prejudice, and the court directed the clerk to close the case.
What happened
In Robert Sanders v. Richard Johnson, Sanders, who represented himself, brought several civil-rights claims under a federal law that allows lawsuits over constitutional violations. Johnson, a police captain, moved to dismiss the claims, and Sanders did not oppose the motion.
The court said Sanders’s claims against Johnson were the same as claims the court had already dismissed against two other officers. Those claims were untimely, did not support a malicious-prosecution claim, or did not adequately allege constitutional violations. The court also said Sanders did not allege that Johnson personally took part in the challenged conduct, and a supervisor is not liable merely because subordinates allegedly acted improperly.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted Johnson’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, directed the clerk to close the case, and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Sanders.
The detailed version
- Sanders v. Doe · No. 1:19-cv-05525
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 11, 2021
Background
Robert Sanders, who was representing himself, asserted several claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against police officers Simonovic and Cintron and their captain, Richard Johnson. Johnson moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally valid claim. Sanders did not oppose the motion.
The court had previously granted Simonovic and Cintron’s motion to dismiss. In that earlier order, the court held that Sanders’s claims involving excessive force, unlawful seizure, and false arrest were untimely; that his malicious-prosecution claim failed because the criminal case did not end in a way that legally supported such a claim; and that his claims about treatment during pretrial detention did not state claims under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. The court also held that Sanders had not adequately stated Fourteenth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference, excessive force, or an invasive search. Sanders had been allowed to amend one claim concerning injuries allegedly incurred at Samaritan Day Top Village, but he did not do so.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Sanders’s claims against Johnson were identical to the claims already dismissed against Simonovic and Cintron and failed for the same reasons. The court also found an additional problem with the claims against Johnson: Sanders did not allege that Johnson personally participated in the challenged conduct. Instead, the claims were based on Johnson’s alleged indifference to actions by his subordinates.
Applying Second Circuit law, the court explained that there is no special rule imposing liability on supervisors. A constitutional violation must be established directly against the supervisory official. Because Sanders had not stated a claim against the officers and had not alleged Johnson’s direct involvement, the court held that the claims against Johnson also failed.
Disposition
The court granted Johnson’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. It directed the clerk to close the case and mail a copy of the memorandum and order to Sanders.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.