Komatsu v. The City of New York

Background

Towaki Komatsu brought the case without a lawyer. He alleged that, during then-Mayor Bill de Blasio’s press conference in a subway station on July 25, 2017, the defendants interfered with his speech and seized him. He asserted claims under the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as state law, and sought damages and injunctive relief.

Komatsu had previously been subject to a filing restriction requiring him to obtain permission before filing certain new cases against New York City, city officials, and New York City Police Department members. The court had allowed him to bring this action only to the extent that his claims fell outside that restriction. He then filed a 251-page complaint containing extensive allegations about other incidents and earlier disputes involving alleged restrictions on his speech at public meetings.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the screening rules for complaints filed without prepaying filing fees. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court concluded that Komatsu’s complaint did not meet that requirement because it included irrelevant and confusing allegations about many different incidents, including matters for which he had filed separate lawsuits. The court also noted that the complaint included many pages discussing matters covered by the filing restriction.

The court further stated that Komatsu’s federal claims appeared to be barred by the three-year limitations period for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The alleged constitutional violations occurred on July 25, 2017, and Komatsu knew about them that day, but he filed this action on January 17, 2022. The court rejected, at this stage, his argument that later incidents created a continuing violation because the alleged July 25 incident was a separate act that could be evaluated when it occurred. The court also stated that even possible tolling based on an earlier attempt to add the claims would not make them timely.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Komatsu 30 days to file an amended complaint containing a short and plain statement of claims arising from the July 25, 2017 incident. The court did not dismiss the complaint at that time, but required any amended complaint to include facts explaining why the claims should not be dismissed as untimely, including any facts supporting equitable tolling. The court warned that failure to amend within the permitted period, without good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.