Johnson v. Bragg

Background

Jinja “Kyng Pariah” Johnson, who was being held at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, filed this self-represented action seeking damages. She invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for certain violations of federal rights by state actors, and Bivens, a legal theory allowing certain damages claims against individual federal officers. The court treated the claims against former President Donald Trump as Bivens claims and the claims against the other defendants as claims under Section 1983.

Johnson named Alvin Bragg, Donald Trump, Judge Baber, Adam Buribham, the New York City Police Department, the City of New York, New York State, an NYPD officer identified as Graham, an NYPD officer identified as Brown, correctional personnel, a doctor, and entities or locations including “East 5th Street,” “West 30th Street,” “Section 8,” “Garden Housing,” and “Precincts 9th, 13th, 14th, 28th.” Her allegations described events allegedly occurring at different times and in different places, including alleged police conduct in Jersey City, arrests and other events in New York, alleged mistreatment in Los Angeles County, and alleged harassment and disciplinary actions while detained on Rikers Island. The court said it was unclear when and where some alleged events occurred and who caused some of the alleged injuries.

Screening standard

Because Johnson was proceeding without paying the filing fee in advance and sought relief from government entities or personnel, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented pleadings generously, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a legally valid claim plausible.

Dismissed claims

The court dismissed all of Johnson’s Section 1983 claims against New York State for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment. The court explained that New York had not waived its immunity from federal-court lawsuits and that Congress had not removed that immunity for Section 1983 claims.

The court dismissed the claims against the NYPD because, under New York City law, the NYPD is not an entity that can be sued. It also dismissed claims against the named streets, housing-related programs, and precincts because Section 1983 claims must be brought against persons or qualifying governmental entities, and Bivens claims must be brought against individual federal officers.

Claims that may be amended

The court granted Johnson leave to file a second amended complaint stating facts that could support a Section 1983 claim against the City of New York. A municipality is not liable under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted improperly. Johnson would need to allege a city policy, custom, or practice that caused the violation of her federal rights.

The court also granted leave to amend the claims against individual defendants. Johnson had to identify only people who were personally and directly involved in the alleged violations and explain what each person did or failed to do. The court stated that supervisory status or employment of someone who allegedly violated her rights would not alone establish liability under Section 1983 or Bivens.

The court further granted leave to amend so Johnson could allege facts showing that the Southern District of New York was the proper venue for all claims. The alleged events occurred in multiple locations, including New Jersey, New York, and Los Angeles County, and the residence of each remaining defendant was unclear. The court reserved the venue determination until Johnson filed a second amended complaint.

Leave to amend and disposition

The second amended complaint had to completely replace the original complaint and its supplements. Johnson had to repeat any facts or claims she wanted the court to consider, identify defendants in both the caption and the factual allegations, describe the relevant events and injuries, and state the relief sought. The court allowed 30 days for filing. It stated that failure to comply, absent good cause, could result in dismissal of the remaining claims for failure to state a claim or because the case was filed in the wrong venue.

The court therefore dismissed Johnson’s claims against New York State, the NYPD, and the named places, programs, and precincts, while granting leave to file a second amended complaint addressing the identified defects. No summons issued at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.