Komatsu v. The City of New York

Background

Towaki Komatsu asked the court to certify several matters for immediate review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), such an appeal requires a controlling legal question, substantial disagreement about that question, and a likelihood that immediate review would materially advance the end of the litigation.

Komatsu also submitted a separate request asking the court to require the New York City Council to allow people testifying at its public hearings to present video that would be projected on an external monitor. He sought that order in connection with a public hearing scheduled for February 17, 2022.

The Court’s Analysis

First, Komatsu sought review of the court’s refusal to let him request sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against Pinny Ringel and Joni Kletter for conduct at a November 16, 2021 public meeting. The court stated that the legal authority Komatsu cited, including 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e), was not analogous to the circumstances presented. It also stated that Komatsu had not provided a basis for sanctions.

Second, Komatsu sought clarification concerning the court’s refusal to reconsider its January 26, 2021 order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. The court stated that he had not identified controlling decisions or information the court had overlooked, and had not provided the proposed basis for an immediate appeal. To the extent this request concerned Komatsu’s ability to bring a new action alleging constitutional violations arising from the way New York City Council public hearings are conducted, the court said the issue was moot because its February 15, 2022 order granted him permission to bring that action.

The court denied the separate request for a video-related order as premature because the new action had not been filed.

Third, Komatsu sought review of the court’s refusal to state that its December 15, 2020 filing restrictions did not cover new claims about public meetings, so long as those claims did not concern his alleged prevention from attending public meetings attended by Bill de Blasio. The court reviewed the restrictions and its earlier description of the allegations in the consolidated case, which included being barred from entering event premises, being required to sit in an overflow room, and having testimony cut short. The court also repeated that the restrictions do not prevent new actions unrelated to allegations that City officials restricted Komatsu’s speech at public meetings. It nevertheless concluded that Komatsu had not shown that the requirements for an immediate appeal were met.

Finally, the court stated that some of Komatsu’s requests violated its July 16, 2021 order barring successive requests for injunctive relief that had already been denied, requests concerning issues not before the court, and requests directed at people or entities that were not defendants.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Komatsu’s request to certify the matters for immediate interlocutory appeal. The court also denied the request for an order concerning video at public hearings as premature. The court warned that continued failure to obey court orders may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Komatsu.