Johnson v. City of New York

Background

Vandyke Johnson sued the City of New York, Diana Alama and Sheena Blaise, identified as Child Protective Services workers, and David A. Hansell, identified as Commissioner of the New York City Administration of Child Services. Johnson represented himself. His claims arose from arrests, a family-court neglect proceeding, orders of protection, and child-services actions involving Johnson and his family.

According to the opinion, Johnson was arrested on August 22, 2019, after his stepdaughter, identified as A.O.M., reported that he had grabbed and dragged her. He was later charged with assault and related crimes, and a criminal court issued an order of protection. The Administration of Child Services then filed a neglect petition in Family Court alleging excessive corporal punishment involving A.O.M. and Johnson’s biological daughter, identified as V.J. The Family Court issued a temporary order of protection.

The criminal charges arising from the August 22 incident were dismissed on November 25, 2019. Johnson later returned to the children’s residence after being advised by his criminal defense attorneys that no order of protection remained. He was arrested and spent eighteen hours in jail. He was arrested again outside V.J.’s school on February 12, 2020, for criminal contempt. The criminal cases arising from those later arrests were dismissed, and ACS withdrew the neglect petition on August 3, 2021.

Johnson’s Third Amended Complaint asserted federal and state claims. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses recommended granting the motion. Johnson filed objections and supplemental objections.

Court’s analysis

The district court adopted the report after reviewing the portions to which Johnson objected independently and reviewing the remaining portions for clear error.

Claims based on alleged searches of Johnson’s children. The court dismissed claims based on an alleged unlawful search and seizure of Johnson’s minor children because Johnson could not assert his children’s constitutional rights on their behalf. The court had previously ruled that these rights belonged to the children themselves, and Johnson acknowledged that he knew of no change in the law supporting his position.

Malicious-prosecution claim. Johnson alleged that the defendants maliciously prosecuted him by filing the Family Court neglect petition. The court accepted that such a claim could be based on a civil family-court proceeding, but held that Johnson had not adequately pleaded two required elements: lack of probable cause and malice.

The court found that the allegations and other materials before it supported probable cause when ACS filed the petition. The petition relied on A.O.M.’s statements, corroboration from her mother and younger sister, and observations by police officers and ACS workers of redness, scratches, and bruises on A.O.M.’s neck. The Family Court’s order of protection also created a presumption of probable cause. The court held that Johnson’s allegations about ACS’s failure to investigate certain matters, including a possible medical explanation for the marks and an interview with his babysitter, did not overcome that presumption. Nor did the alleged omissions show that the petition contained intentionally or recklessly false submissions.

The court separately held that Johnson pleaded no non-conclusory facts showing that the proceeding was motivated by an improper purpose. His statements that the defendants acted maliciously merely repeated the legal requirement and were not enough. The court therefore dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim. It also agreed with the magistrate judge that Alama was entitled to qualified immunity based on probable cause and that Hansell and Blaise had not been connected to the filing of the neglect petition through non-conclusory factual allegations.

General civil-rights claim. Johnson’s second cause of action invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court dismissed this claim because it did not identify clearly which constitutional rights were violated or explain how the alleged conduct was distinct from Johnson’s more specific claims.

Claim against the City. Johnson asserted that the City was liable under the rule commonly called Monell liability, which requires facts showing that a municipal policy or custom caused a constitutional violation. The court held that Johnson had not adequately alleged an underlying constitutional violation. It further held that his general assertions about City policies involving false neglect petitions, family separation, arrests, and examinations of children did not identify a widespread or recurring practice, pattern, or custom.

State-law claims. After dismissing the claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s state-law claims in his Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action.

Disposition

Judge Daniels overruled Johnson’s objections and adopted Magistrate Judge Moses’s report in full. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the action. The court also agreed that Johnson should not receive another opportunity to amend because he had already had multiple opportunities to correct the pleading deficiencies.