Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-11115
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Komatsu v. City of New York: Judge Swain granted Komatsu’s request to withdraw the case, dismissed the complaint voluntarily, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Towaki Komatsu’s case was voluntarily dismissed at his request. The City of New York and the other named defendants were affected because the action against them ended without a ruling on the underlying claims. Komatsu was also denied permission to appeal without paying the required court fees.
What happened
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Towaki Komatsu challenged an earlier order allowing him to file an amended complaint and tried to appeal that order. The Court of Appeals denied permission for the first appeal, citing a filing restriction and a pattern of filings it described as vexatious.
Komatsu later wrote that he no longer wanted to file another amended complaint and asked to withdraw the action. The district court treated the letter as a request to withdraw the case and granted it. The complaint was voluntarily dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. She also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Komatsu permission to appeal without paying the required court fees. The opinion does not state that the court reached the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-11115
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 16, 2022
Background
The Court had previously granted Towaki Komatsu permission to file an amended complaint. Komatsu filed an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before a final judgment—seeking to challenge that order. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied permission for the appeal, stating that it had imposed a filing restriction on Komatsu and that the appeal did not depart from his prior pattern of filings that it characterized as vexatious.
Komatsu later sent the district court a letter stating that he gave up his right to file another amended complaint and was withdrawing from the case. He also filed a second interlocutory appeal concerning the earlier order. The district court concluded that the second appeal was defective because it challenged a nonfinal order that had not been certified for interlocutory appeal. The court therefore retained jurisdiction over the action.
Court’s Ruling
The court treated Komatsu’s letter as a request to withdraw the action and granted that request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The complaint was voluntarily dismissed. The court did not decide the underlying claims.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the dismissal order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required court fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.
Disposition
The request to withdraw the action was granted, the complaint was voluntarily dismissed, and appeal fee-waiver status was denied. The supplied opinion text contains an incomplete portion of a footnote, but the order’s disposition is clear.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.