Johnson v. McCallum

Background

Todd L. Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Cliff McCallum and two unidentified security guards. Johnson alleged that he went to a Social Security Administration office in the Bronx on January 17, 2023, and that McCallum pushed him out of the office and reached for a gun. Johnson alleged that he returned the next morning, when McCallum and two other guards detained and handcuffed him. Johnson further alleged that McCallum choked him by pulling his hoodie, that police officers later locked him up instead of reviewing security footage, and that he went to a hospital for neck injuries.

Johnson identified the defendants as security guards with the Department of Homeland Security and asserted claims under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking money damages. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and had previously been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Court’s Analysis

The court evaluated the complaint under the screening rules for a plaintiff proceeding without prepaying fees. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally but must still contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

The court treated Johnson’s constitutional damages claims against individual federal officials as claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. To state such a claim, Johnson had to plausibly allege both that the defendants acted under federal authority and that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

The court concluded that Johnson had not plausibly alleged that the three guards were federal employees. Their listed work locations were at a Social Security Administration office, not a location obviously connected with the Department of Homeland Security. The allegations therefore did not establish whether the guards worked for the Department of Homeland Security, another federal agency, or a private security company. Because Johnson had not plausibly alleged that the defendants were government actors, the complaint did not state a claim under Bivens at this stage. The court noted that a state-law assault claim against a private security guard might be possible, but it was unclear whether the federal court would have jurisdiction over such a claim.

Disposition

The court granted Johnson 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint rather than supplement it and must identify the individuals involved, describe each defendant’s conduct and the relevant events, state his injuries, and specify the relief sought. Johnson may use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for unidentified defendants, but the court warned that doing so does not pause the three-year limitations period. No summons would issue at that time.

The court stated that if Johnson did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order itself granted leave to amend; it did not decide the truth of Johnson’s assault allegations or whether he ultimately could recover damages.