Johnson v. Bragg

Background

Johnson filed a second amended complaint naming federal, state, and municipal officials and other individuals, including Alvin Bragg, Kathy Hochul, Eric Adams, Charles Schumer, Melanie Dearth, and others. The opinion states that Dearth appeared to be Johnson’s criminal defense attorney and that many other defendants appeared to be government officials or New York City police officers. Johnson alleged injuries including defamation, intentional torts, perjury, property damage, conspiracy to murder, searches and frisks, sexual assault, harassment, torture, racism, and a targeted attack. She sought criminal prosecutions, justice, expungement of her record, an acquittal without prejudice, and $100 million in damages.

The court had previously dismissed claims against the State of New York, the New York City Police Department, and named places, programs, and precincts. It had allowed Johnson to file a second amended complaint if she provided facts supporting a claim against the City of New York, identified defendants personally and directly involved in the alleged constitutional violations, and explained why venue was proper. Because the second amended complaint did not name the City of New York, the court treated claims against the City as abandoned.

Screening standard

Because Johnson was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, and because she was detained, the Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen her complaint. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally, but the complaint still had to provide enough factual matter to make liability plausible.

Rulings

Requests for criminal prosecution. The court dismissed the claims seeking investigation or prosecution of defendants for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A private person cannot compel prosecutors or a federal court to bring criminal charges against someone else, and the decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors.

Request for release from detention. To the extent Johnson sought release from state pretrial detention, the court treated that request as one for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that she had not alleged facts showing that she exhausted available state-court remedies. It therefore denied § 2241 relief without prejudice. The court explained that this disposition did not trigger restrictions on later successive habeas petitions.

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens. Section 1983 provides a claim for certain constitutional violations by persons acting under state law. Bivens provides a limited claim for certain constitutional violations by individual federal officers. The court had previously instructed Johnson to identify defendants personally and directly involved in the alleged violations and to explain what each person did.

The court held that Johnson did not provide sufficient facts showing that any named defendant, including Dearth, was personally and directly involved in violating her constitutional rights. It separately held that Dearth’s alleged legal representation of Johnson did not make her a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and Johnson alleged no coordinated action between Dearth and a state official. The court dismissed the Section 1983 and Bivens claims for failure to state a claim, without prejudice to filing a new separate civil action identifying personally and directly involved state actors or federal officials and alleging their involvement with specific facts.

State-law claims. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—in the early-stage action. It therefore declined to consider any state-law claims Johnson may have intended to assert.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It dismissed the prosecution-related claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; denied § 2241 relief without prejudice; dismissed the Section 1983 and Bivens claims for failure to state a claim, without prejudice to a new action meeting the stated requirements; and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over possible state-law claims. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free status for an appeal, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.