Johnson v. Carter

Background

Jinja “Kyng Pariah” Johnson, who was detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She alleged that defendants violated her rights before and during her detention, including through the conditions of confinement, inadequate medical treatment, her January 31, 2022 arrest, alleged stalking, and alleged poisoning by two other detainees. She also asserted unrelated claims that Shawn Carter, Beyonce Knowles-Carter, Wiz Kid, Saint Jhn, and Katora Moreró “Young Ma” infringed her music.

The court had granted Johnson permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to dismiss certain prisoner claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant.

Leave to Amend

The court concluded that Johnson had not identified individual defendants personally involved in the alleged violations during her detention or arrest. It found that the complaint did not provide enough facts to state conditions-of-confinement, medical, or false-arrest claims. In particular, it did not identify who knew about a serious risk to her health or safety, explain the relevant conditions or medical treatment sufficiently, or provide facts showing that her arrest lacked probable cause.

The court declined to dismiss the stalking claims against Nicole Arrington at that stage because it could not determine from the complaint whether Johnson could state a Section 1983 claim or whether those claims were related to the other claims. The court granted Johnson 60 days to file an amended complaint identifying the people involved and describing what each person did, when and where the events occurred, her injuries, and the relief requested. The order states that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

Severance of Music Claims

The court severed Johnson’s claims against Shawn Carter, Beyonce Knowles-Carter, Wiz Kid, Saint Jhn, and Katora Moreró “Young Ma” because the alleged music infringement did not arise from the same events or present common legal or factual questions as the arrest and detention claims. It directed the Clerk to open a new civil action for those claims. The order states that Johnson would be charged a new filing fee in that action, while also providing an opportunity to request waiver of prepayment.

Dismissals

The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Police Department and the Rose M. Singer Center under the New York City Charter because municipal agencies generally cannot be sued separately from the City of New York. The order specifies that those claims were dismissed without prejudice to asserting them against the City.

The court dismissed Johnson’s Section 1983 claims against Victoria Nasarovia and Suzette Troutman for failure to state a claim because they were private detainees, not alleged state actors. It also dismissed without prejudice any state-law claims Johnson might be asserting against them after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

The court dismissed Johnson’s claims against the State of New York as barred by the State’s immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. It dismissed the claims against Ivanka Trump as frivolous because Johnson offered no plausible facts supporting the alleged attempted kidnapping.

The court also stated that Johnson failed to state a claim against the City of New York because she did not allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violations. However, the conclusion expressly lists dismissals against the New York City Police Department, the Rose M. Singer Center, New York State, Ivanka Trump, Nasarovia, and Troutman, but does not separately state that the City claims were dismissed.

Final Orders

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted leave to amend, severed the music-infringement claims, directed the Clerk to open a new case for those claims, and entered the dismissals described above. No summons would issue at that time. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.