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 declined to change the dismissal after finding Washington’s objections and supporting materials untimely and improper new evidence.
Pro se plaintiff Landon L. Washington, whose objections and accompanying grievance materials did not change the earlier dismissal of his claims against the moving defendants. The opinion also concerns C.O. Johnson, Capt. Smart, and the City of New York as defendants, and leaves open the possibility of separate claims about later conduct after administrative exhaustion.
What happened
In Washington v. Johnson, pro se plaintiff Landon L. Washington sent the court a letter objecting to a magistrate judge’s report and asking to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. He also submitted documents concerning a grievance about access to Protestant religious services at a Department of Correction facility.
The court found that Washington’s materials did not change its earlier decision to adopt the report and dismiss his claims against the defendants who moved for dismissal. The court said his objections were late because they were dated 18 days after the objection deadline. It also said courts generally do not consider new evidence submitted with objections to a magistrate judge’s report.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer left the earlier dismissal in place. He stated that Washington could pursue separate claims about later conduct after completing the required administrative process.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Johnson · No. 1:22-cv-01440
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 6, 2023
Background
The court had already adopted a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The report, filed December 21, 2022, gave the parties 14 days from service to file objections, making the deadline January 4, 2023.
On February 3, 2023, the court received documents from pro se plaintiff Landon L. Washington. They included a January 22 letter seeking to respond to the motion to dismiss and object to the report; a January 19 inmate grievance form; and a January 20 disposition form from the Office of Constituent and Grievance Services. The disposition form stated that Washington’s complaint about not being able to attend Protestant religious services had been substantiated and forwarded to the warden’s office for investigation or resolution.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the materials did not alter its decision to adopt the report in its entirety and dismiss Washington’s claims against the moving defendants. First, it found Washington’s objections untimely because they were dated 18 days after the January 4 deadline. Second, the court stated that courts generally do not consider new evidence raised in objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
The court added that, to the extent Washington was asserting ongoing violations or conduct occurring after the events addressed in the report, he could pursue new claims in a separate action after exhausting his administrative remedies.
Disposition
The court left its earlier decision adopting the report and dismissing Washington’s claims against the moving defendants unchanged. The opinion does not state that the court separately granted or denied a new motion; it determines that the submitted materials do not alter the prior dismissal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.