Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00424
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Judge Swain granted an amendment extension but denied fee-free status for any appeal.
Towaki Komatsu, who received an extended deadline to file an amended complaint; the order also affected his ability to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Towaki Komatsu was proceeding without a lawyer and was subject to a prefiling injunction. The court had previously found that his 251-page complaint did not comply with the requirement for a short and plain statement and that claims based on a 2017 incident appeared time-barred unless equitable tolling applied.
The court had struck Komatsu’s amended complaint because it asserted claims different from those he was allowed to pursue. Komatsu asked for more time to file an amended complaint about a July 25, 2017, subway incident, citing his many cases and problems involving judges, the Postal Service, and the Court of Appeals.
Although Judge Swain found that Komatsu had not shown good cause, she granted his request and extended the filing deadline to September 30, 2022. Judge Swain also denied fee-free status for an appeal from the order, certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-00424
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 29, 2022
Background
Towaki Komatsu, who was proceeding without a lawyer, was subject to a prefiling injunction. The court had allowed him to bring this action only to the extent it concerned an incident on July 25, 2017, and only insofar as that incident was outside the scope of an earlier leave-to-file order.
On February 1, 2022, the court ruled that Komatsu’s 251-page complaint violated Rule 8’s requirement that a complaint provide a short and plain statement of the claim. The court also ruled that claims arising from events in 2017 were time-barred when the action was filed unless Komatsu could establish a basis for equitable tolling, meaning a legal reason to pause or extend the filing deadline. The court gave him permission to file an amended complaint.
Komatsu then filed an amended complaint, but the court struck it on August 15, 2022, because it asserted new claims that were wholly different from the claims he had been allowed to file. The court gave him another 30 days to submit an amended complaint limited to the July 25, 2017, incident.
Request for More Time
Komatsu asked for an extension of the September 15, 2022, deadline. He cited the number of cases he was litigating, alleged ongoing judicial misconduct, stated that he could not get a judge to do the job properly, and referred to problems involving the U.S. Postal Service and the Court of Appeals.
Ruling
The court stated that Komatsu’s letter did not show good cause for an extension, but it nevertheless granted his request for an extension of time. The court directed him to file an amended complaint by September 30, 2022, and reiterated that the complaint had to be limited to a short and plain statement about the incident he had been allowed to pursue.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.