Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-07046
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Komatsu v. City of New York, Judge Ramos granted Komatsu’s application without deciding his underlying constitutional claims.
Towaki Komatsu, who represented himself, and the defendants and proposed defendants connected to the requested new action.
What happened
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Towaki Komatsu submitted a letter about a related case and requested permission to bring a new action concerning claims against several individuals. He also complained about how another judge had been assigned to that related case.
Komatsu said the proposed claims involved public meetings and alleged violations of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as discrimination, abuse of process, and selective enforcement. He also asked Judge Ramos to report the other judge’s alleged misconduct through the appropriate judicial process.
Judge Edgardo Ramos’s January 31, 2023, endorsement states that the application was granted. The order did not decide whether Komatsu’s underlying claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-07046
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 31, 2023
Background
Towaki Komatsu, representing himself, submitted a letter concerning this case and a related case identified in the filing as Komatsu v. Urban Pathways, Inc., No. 22-cv-9080 (S.D.N.Y.). The letter responded to an order in that related case and referred to filing restrictions previously imposed on Komatsu.
Application
Komatsu partly requested authorization to start a new action concerning claims he said had been asserted against Steven Banks, Penny Ringel, and Lorri Kletter in the related case. He stated that the proposed claims concerned public meetings and alleged violations of rights involving expression, receiving information, petitioning for redress, expressive association, due process, equal protection, and liberty. He also referred to alleged discrimination, abuse of process, and selective enforcement.
Komatsu separately asked Judge Ramos to take action concerning his allegation that Chief Judge Swain had been assigned to the related case without the required random-assignment process. He asserted that the assignment and the handling of a filing he submitted in that case violated his rights and showed bias.
Ruling
The endorsement states: “The application is granted.” It does not separately identify which portions of Komatsu’s multiple requests were granted or explain the scope of the authorization. Judge Ramos did not decide the merits of Komatsu’s underlying constitutional or other claims. The order therefore addressed a procedural application rather than whether those claims were valid.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.