Johnson v. City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-10535
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Johnson v. City of New York, Judge Broderick granted the City’s motion to dismiss because a prior release barred Johnson’s civil-rights claims.
Glenn Johnson and the City of New York; the Amended Complaint also named unidentified City officers or agents whose alleged conduct was covered by the release.
What happened
In Johnson v. City of New York, Glenn Johnson, representing himself, alleged that New York City police officers arrested him, used tight handcuffs, and caused him other harm after an undercover officer approached his car. He asserted false-arrest, malicious-prosecution, and false-imprisonment claims and sought $2 million.
The City argued that Johnson had already signed a general release in an earlier civil case. The release covered civil-rights and related state-law claims against the City and its officials, employees, representatives, and agents through July 7, 2021. Johnson argued that he did not understand that signing the release would waive these claims.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick took judicial notice of the release and granted the City’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the release’s language was clear and covered Johnson’s claims, which arose from events before he signed it. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10535
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 31, 2023
Background
Glenn Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that on October 8, 2020, four New York City police officers pulled him from his car, pushed him against it, twisted his arms, handcuffed him, and arrested him. He alleged that the handcuffs were too tight during transport and that an officer refused to loosen them after Johnson reported pain. Johnson learned that the woman who had approached his car offering a date for $25 was an undercover police officer. He alleged claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment and sought $2 million.
The City moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally plausible claim. The City relied on a general release that Johnson had signed on July 7, 2021, in a separate civil action involving the City and several of its employees. The release covered all civil-rights and related state-law claims against the City and its past and present officials, employees, representatives, and agents, from the beginning of the world through the release date.
Untimely Opposition Papers
Johnson filed two opposition letters after the deadline. Judge Broderick nevertheless considered them, construing Johnson’s filings liberally because he was representing himself. The letters argued that Johnson did not know that signing the release would waive the claims in this case.
Judicial Notice of the Release
The court took judicial notice of the release. Judicial notice permits a court to consider certain documents and facts without treating them as disputed allegations requiring proof at that stage. The court found that Johnson had knowledge of the release when he filed this lawsuit, even if he did not fully understand its effects. The release applied to the City and to the unidentified City officers named in the Amended Complaint.
Ruling on the Release
The court interpreted the release under ordinary contract principles. It found the release’s language unambiguous and broad enough to cover Johnson’s civil-rights claims because those claims arose on October 8, 2020—before Johnson signed the release. The court also held that Johnson’s claimed lack of understanding did not alter the result. The opinion noted that Johnson did not allege fraud, duress, illegality, mutual mistake, or another comparable defense to the release.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the City’s motion to dismiss. The opinion states that Johnson’s claims were barred by the release and that the Amended Complaint must be dismissed. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate open motions and close the case. The opinion does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.