Johnson v. Rose M. Singer Center

Background

The court had previously allowed Johnson to file an amended complaint alleging that New York City Police Department officers violated her rights during a January 31, 2022 arrest and that correctional staff violated her constitutional rights during her detention at the Rose M. Singer Center. The court also separated Johnson’s federal Copyright Act claims into another action. That separate action was later dismissed without prejudice after Johnson did not pay the filing fee or seek permission to proceed without paying it.

Johnson then filed two amended pleadings and several letters. The first amended complaint repeated the copyright claims that had been separated from this case, so the court directed the Clerk to strike it from this action. In the second amended complaint, Johnson named several individuals but did not explain why they were defendants or allege facts connecting them to unconstitutional conduct.

The second amended complaint referred to alleged problems involving an incident with another detainee, medical care, a broken foot sustained while playing basketball, footwear provided at the facility, and access to college classes. Johnson also sought release from custody, expungement of her criminal record, prosecution of everyone involved, and monetary damages.

Court’s analysis

The court treated Johnson’s civil-rights allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain claims for constitutional violations by state or local officials. The court explained that Johnson needed to identify the constitutional rights involved, name the people who allegedly violated those rights, and provide facts showing each person’s personal involvement.

The court dismissed the claims against prosecutors Adam Birhabam and John Johnson because Johnson alleged no facts showing their involvement in constitutional violations. The court also held that prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for conduct closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. It therefore dismissed those claims because they sought monetary relief from immune defendants and were legally frivolous under the screening statutes.

The court dismissed the arrest claims for failure to state a claim because Johnson provided no facts about what happened during the arrest. It specified that the claims against Officers Lily Graham, Magrino, and Heredia were dismissed without prejudice because the related criminal proceedings were ongoing.

The court also dismissed the detention claims. It found that the allegations about Officer Garcia did not show a sufficiently serious condition or a resulting constitutional harm, and Garcia was not named as a defendant. The court stated that disagreement over medical treatment, including the decision not to take an X-ray, generally does not by itself support a constitutional claim. It also held that the footwear allegation did not describe a sufficiently serious risk to health or safety. Finally, the court concluded that Johnson’s allegation about education did not state a federally protected right because, under the law discussed by the court, New York’s education right applies to people under 21, and publicly available records indicated that Johnson was over 21.

Custody-related request

The court explained that a civil-rights action under Section 1983 cannot be used to obtain release from custody. A person challenging pretrial detention generally uses a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, while a person challenging custody after a state conviction and sentence uses 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court declined to treat Johnson’s request as either type of petition because she did not allege that she had exhausted available state-court remedies. The court stated that she could return to federal court with a custody-challenge petition after pursuing those state remedies, if she remained unsuccessful.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It also dismissed the complaint because it sought relief from defendants immune from that relief and, as a result, was legally frivolous. The order separately states that the arrest claims against Officers Lily Graham, Magrino, and Heredia were dismissed without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk to strike the first amended complaint from this action and return it to Johnson, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment. The conclusion does not assign an overall with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation to the complaint.