Komatsu v. The City of New York

Background

Towaki Komatsu filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was representing himself and proceeding without prepaying filing fees. He filed an amended complaint and separately submitted an unsigned proposed order seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

The amended complaint requested a change of venue to a court outside the Second Circuit. Komatsu alleged, among other things, that the U.S. Marshals Service and court security officers had failed to investigate his complaints and had displayed information about him inside federal courthouses. He also referred to disagreements with rulings in earlier cases and argued that several judges should not handle his litigation.

The amended complaint also appeared to challenge the New York City Human Resources Administration’s refusal to immediately reimburse public-assistance benefits that Komatsu believed had been stolen from his account. He appeared to assert due-process and state-law claims related to those benefits and to an alleged contract with the New York City Department of Social Services’ General Counsel.

Recusal motion

The court construed the request to move the case outside the Second Circuit as, in part, a motion for Judge Swain to recuse herself—that is, to step aside because her impartiality allegedly could reasonably be questioned.

The court explained that recusal is required when an objective, informed observer would significantly doubt that justice could be done without the judge’s withdrawal. It also explained that disagreement with a judge’s rulings ordinarily is a reason to appeal, not a basis for recusal. Komatsu did not identify facts showing that Judge Swain had deep-seated favoritism or hostility that would make fair judgment impossible. The allegations concerning court security officers and the U.S. Marshals Service also did not establish a proper basis for recusal because those entities were not parties to this action and their conduct was not the subject of this litigation.

The court therefore denied Komatsu’s motion seeking Judge Swain’s recusal.

Request for preliminary injunctive relief

To obtain a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, Komatsu had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation together with a balance of hardships strongly favoring him.

The court found that Komatsu’s amended complaint and motion did not make the required showing. The 181-page amended complaint did not provide the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It contained irrelevant and confusing allegations concerning many different incidents, including some involving people who were not named as defendants.

The court also stated that Komatsu’s apparent due-process claims concerning public-assistance benefits would fail because he did not allege that he had used available state procedures. In addition, he did not allege facts showing that money damages would be inadequate compensation for his claimed losses. The court noted that much of the requested relief appeared to have little relationship to the claims in the action.

The court denied the request for an order to show cause seeking preliminary injunctive relief. It stated that it would address the amended complaint’s claims on their merits later; this order did not finally decide those claims.

Disposition

The court denied Komatsu’s motion for Judge Swain’s recusal and denied his request for an order to show cause. It also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied the ability to proceed without prepaying appeal fees for purposes of an appeal.