Komatsu v. The City of New York

Background

Towaki Komatsu, who was representing himself and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, sued the City of New York and other defendants. The opinion identifies the other defendants as Hector Rosado, an NYPD officer with shield number 2225; Edward Pei, an NYPD officer; NYPD Officer O’Brien, shield number 10975; the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority; and Philip E. Floumansaft.

The opinion states that Komatsu had brought many actions concerning his exclusion from public meetings. In a prior related proceeding, the court consolidated nine of those actions and imposed an order requiring Komatsu to obtain permission before filing a new action and to limit any new complaint to 25 pages. He received permission to file an action concerning alleged First and Fourth Amendment violations at a July 25, 2017 press conference in a subway station, to the extent those issues were outside the scope of the earlier permission order.

Komatsu then filed this case. In a February 1, 2022 order, the court held that his 251-page complaint did not satisfy the rule requiring a short and plain statement of his claims. The court also stated that his claims arising from July 25, 2017, appeared to be time-barred, meaning filed too late under the applicable limitations period. The court allowed him to file an amended complaint addressing those claims and instructed him to include facts supporting a possible extension of the limitations period, known as equitable tolling.

Amended Complaint

Komatsu’s amended complaint was 96 pages long and did not mention the July 25, 2017 claims. Instead, it asserted new claims based on an August 19, 2021 incident. According to the opinion, Komatsu alleged that he was detained for fare evasion at the Union Square subway station while traveling to a public hearing in Brooklyn. He claimed, among other things, that the detention was a pretext intended to prevent him from testifying at the hearing.

The court concluded that the amended complaint did not comply with the February 2022 order because that order permitted amendment only concerning the July 25, 2017 claims. The court stated that it could dismiss claims in an amended complaint that exceed the scope of limited permission to amend. The court also noted that Komatsu remained subject to the prior order requiring permission before filing a new action and that the permission granted in this case concerned the July 25, 2017 claims, not the August 19, 2021 allegations.

Ruling

The court directed the Clerk of Court to strike Komatsu’s amended complaint, ECF 10, from this action. The court did not decide the merits of the August 19, 2021 allegations. It stated that nothing in the order prevented Komatsu from requesting permission, under the earlier proceeding’s filing restrictions, to bring a new complaint concerning that incident.

The court granted Komatsu leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days. That complaint had to provide a short and plain statement of the July 25, 2017 claims and show why those claims should not be dismissed as time-barred. The court warned that, if Komatsu did not file the complaint or did not plead facts showing that equitable tolling was warranted, it would dismiss the claims as time-barred.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.