Komatsu v. The City of New York

Background

Towaki Komatsu proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He alleged that defendants violated his rights during or in connection with a July 25, 2017 press conference involving then-Mayor Bill de Blasio. According to the amended complaint, Komatsu spoke loudly because of competing noise, Defendant Howard Redmond made physical contact with his arm, and Komatsu was eventually escorted from a subway station. Komatsu also alleged that other hecklers were treated differently. He asserted claims under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and invoked 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(5), New York Penal Law § 240.26, and New York Penal Law § 195.00.

The court had twice directed Komatsu to amend his pleading, including to address whether the claims were filed too late. The operative amended complaint was filed on September 20, 2022. The court construed it as limited to claims arising from July 25, 2017, even though it contained allegations about many other events, lawsuits, officials, and issues.

Recusal request

Komatsu asked Judge Swain to recuse herself based on allegations that she had allowed other judges, court personnel, and United States Marshals Service personnel to violate federal criminal law and court orders. The court explained that recusal is required when a reasonable, fully informed observer would significantly doubt the judge’s impartiality, but that judicial rulings ordinarily do not establish disqualifying bias. It found that Komatsu identified no conduct outside the judicial proceedings that required recusal and denied the motion for recusal.

Prefiling injunction

An earlier order required Komatsu to obtain permission before filing a new action in the Southern District of New York against New York City, city officials, or New York Police Department members concerning alleged interference with his attendance at public meetings with the Mayor. Judge Edgardo Ramos later granted permission to bring claims about certain July 25, 2017 and January 2019 subway-station incidents only to the extent they were outside that restriction.

Judge Swain determined that the operative complaint challenged Komatsu’s removal from the July 25, 2017 press conference, the treatment of other hecklers, and alleged interference by Mayor de Blasio with Komatsu’s speech. The court held that these allegations concerned restrictions on speech at a public meeting and therefore fell within the earlier filing injunction. The complaint was unauthorized under that injunction.

Pleading and timeliness

The court also held that the amended complaint violated Rule 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court found that the complaint combined numerous unrelated claims and allegations, leaving defendants to identify the relevant material from a mass of text. It concluded that the pleading therefore failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The court further held that Komatsu’s federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were time-barred. The court applied New York’s three-year limitations period for personal-injury claims and concluded that the claims accrued on July 25, 2017, when Komatsu knew of the alleged injury. The claims were therefore already barred when Komatsu sought permission to file this action on January 3, 2022.

The court rejected Komatsu’s arguments for equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances. It concluded that even tolling connected to an earlier proposed pleading would not make the claims timely, and that Komatsu’s other explanations did not establish a basis for tolling. The court also rejected his reliance on the continuing-violation doctrine, explaining that separate discrete acts generally have separate limitations periods.

Because it dismissed the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims, but the court stated that it generally should decline that jurisdiction when the federal claims have been dismissed at an early stage.

Other letters and disposition

The court declined to address unrelated matters raised in Komatsu’s additional letters, including allegations about Mayor Eric Adams, the United States Marshals Service, other judges, and a 2022 mayoral policy. The court stated that such matters could not be added to this case through letters.

Judge Swain’s conclusion denied the recusal motion and dismissed the amended complaint because the claims were unauthorized under the prefiling injunction, failed to comply with Rule 8, and were time-barred without eligibility for tolling. The action was closed, the Clerk was directed to enter judgment, and the court denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.