Washington v. Johnson
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-01440
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Washington v. Johnson, Judge Engelmayer granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Washington had not exhausted administrative remedies.
Landon L. Washington’s claims against the City of New York and Captain Smart were dismissed without prejudice; the court had already dismissed his claims against C.O. Johnson.
What happened
In Washington v. Johnson, Landon L. Washington, representing himself, sought damages under a federal civil-rights law from correctional employees and the City of New York for alleged constitutional violations while he was in custody at Rikers Island.
The court had already dismissed Washington’s claims against C.O. Johnson for failure to state a claim. The City and Captain Smart later moved to dismiss, arguing that Washington had not completed the required administrative process and had not adequately stated claims. A magistrate judge recommended granting that motion, and Washington did not file formal objections.
Judge Engelmayer reviewed the recommendation for clear error, adopted it in full, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Washington raising proper claims after exhausting administrative remedies.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Johnson · No. 1:22-cv-01440
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 3, 2023
Background
Landon L. Washington, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state or local officials, against C.O. Johnson, Captain Smart, and the City of New York. He sought compensatory damages for alleged constitutional violations during his custody at the Anna M. Kross Center at Rikers Island.
The court previously dismissed the allegations against Johnson for failure to state a claim and directed the clerk to remove Johnson as a defendant. The City and Smart then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Their arguments included that Washington had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and had failed to state a claim against them.
Report and Recommendation
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. After several deadline extensions, Washington submitted letters stating that he opposed the motion and wished to continue the case. Judge Gorenstein recommended granting the motion to dismiss because Washington had failed to state a claim against the City and Smart. No party filed objections to the recommendation.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Because there were no objections, Judge Engelmayer reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a new review of the issues. He found no facial error, adopted Judge Gorenstein’s recommendation in its entirety, and stated that Washington’s failure to object waived appellate review of those objections.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Washington raising proper claims concerning the alleged ongoing violations after exhausting his administrative remedies. The order did not decide the merits of whether the alleged constitutional violations occurred.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.