Johnson v. Reed

Background

The court addressed three pending matters: the defendants’ motion to preclude Johnson from using certain documents, Johnson’s motion to “strike and/or impeach” Officer Alexander Thornton for alleged perjury, and confusion about which pleading was the operative complaint.

Earlier orders required Johnson to produce documents responsive to specified discovery requests by February 26, 2021. Those orders warned that failure to produce the documents could prevent Johnson from using them to support his claims. The defendants later asserted that Johnson had not produced the documents. Johnson responded that office closures during the COVID-19 pandemic and his incarceration had made it difficult to obtain documents.

Defendants’ motion to preclude

The court granted the defendants’ motion to preclude Johnson from using: (1) purported written statements from witnesses to the October 10, 2016 incident that were not already in defense counsel’s possession; and (2) purported written statements notarized or witnessed by Parole Officer Marie Tannura that were not already in defense counsel’s possession.

The court treated preclusion as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), which allows a court to impose consequences for violating a discovery order. It found that Johnson had failed to comply with multiple orders despite repeated warnings and additional time to produce the documents. Although the court recognized the challenges faced by incarcerated people representing themselves, it concluded that no sanction short of preclusion would adequately address Johnson’s failure to comply.

Johnson’s motion to strike or impeach

The court denied Johnson’s motion to “strike and/or impeach” Thornton. Johnson argued that Thornton’s response to an interrogatory was untruthful because Thornton said he had never testified in a criminal proceeding in the case, while a transcript showed that Thornton testified at Johnson’s April 17, 2017 criminal trial in Middletown City Court.

The court agreed that Thornton’s interrogatory response was inaccurate. However, defense counsel had acknowledged the mistake, and Johnson already knew about Thornton’s earlier testimony. The court therefore found no prejudice and declined to bar the defendants from using the response or to prevent Thornton from testifying. The court explained that Johnson could use the inaccurate response to challenge Thornton’s credibility if Thornton later offered testimony, to the extent permitted by the presiding judge.

Operative complaint

The court ruled that Johnson’s February 3, 2021 “Verified Supporting Affidavit” was not the operative complaint. The court found it unclear whether Johnson intended that filing to be a new amended complaint. It also found that the filing was late and did not satisfy the requirements for another amendment because Johnson had not obtained the defendants’ written consent or sought the court’s permission.

The court determined that Johnson’s Amended Complaint, filed on May 26, 2020 at ECF No. 43, was the operative complaint. The court further directed Reed, Thornton, and the City of Middletown, New York, to file and serve answers to that complaint by April 13, 2022.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to preclude was GRANTED. Johnson’s motion to strike or impeach was DENIED. The May 26, 2020 Amended Complaint was determined to be the operative complaint. The order was procedural and discovery-related; it did not decide the merits of Johnson’s underlying claims.