Komatsu v. The City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 15, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-00424·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TOWAKI KOMATSU, Plaintiff, -against- CITY OF NEW YORK; HECTOR ROSADO, 22-CV-0424 (LTS) NYPD OFFICER, SHIELD #2225; EDWARD PEI, NYPD OFFICER; NYPD OFFICER ORDER O’BRIEN (SHIELD #: 10975); NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY; PHILIP E. FLOUMANSHAFT, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has brought many actions against the City of New York, members of the New York City Police Department, and city officials regarding his exclusion from public meetings. Nine of these actions were consolidated in Komatsu v. The City of New York, ECF 20-CV-07046 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), and District Judge Edgardo Ramos imposed a prefiling injunction requiring Plaintiff to seek leave before filing such a new action and to limit the new complaint to 25 pages. Plaintiff sought leave to bring a complaint asserting violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights at a press conference in the subway station on July 25, 2017. Judge Ramos granted Plaintiff leave to do so “to the extent these topics fall outside the scope of this Court’s leave to file order,” Komatsu, 1:20-CV-07046, 289, and Plaintiff filed this action. By order dated February 1, 2022, the Court held that Plaintiff’s 251-page complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it was not a short and plain statement of his claim and further held that his claims arising on July 25, 2017, appeared to be time-barred. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and directed him to include any facts warranting tolling of the limitations period. Plaintiff’s amended complaint totals 96 pages and does not mention his claims arising on July 25, 2017. Instead, he brings entirely new claims. Specifically, his new claims arise from the

fact that on August 19, 2021, when he was en route to a public hearing in Brooklyn, New York, he was detained at the Union Square subway station for fare evasion. Plaintiff contends, among many other things, that his detention was a pretext intended to prevent him from testifying at the public hearing. (ECF 10 at 15-16, ¶ 8.) The Court’s February 2022 order granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint regarding his July 25, 2017, claims, and Plaintiff’s amended complaint is not responsive to the Court’s order. The Court is authorized to dismiss claims going beyond the scope of the original lawsuit and the permitted amendment. See, e.g. Palm Beach Strategic Income, LP v. Salzman, 457 F. App’x 40, 43 (2d Cir. 2012) (“District courts in this Circuit have routinely dismissed claims in amended complaints where the court granted leave to amend for a limited purpose and

the plaintiff filed an amended complaint exceeding the scope of the permission granted.”); Grimes v. Fremont General Corp., 933 F. Supp. 2d 584, 597 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing cases); Sullivan v. Stein, 487 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D. Conn. 2007) (dismissing claims as “beyond the scope” of the Court’s order). Moreover, Plaintiff remains subject to a prefiling injunction, and he was granted leave to file an action regarding his July 25, 2017, claims. Plaintiff does indicate that he sought, or was granted, leave to bring an action arising from allegations that police officers detained him on August 19, 2021, to prevent him from testifying at a public hearing. For all of these reasons, the Court therefore directs the Clerk of Court to strike Plaintiff’s amended complaint from this action. Nothing in this order prevents Plaintiff from requesting leave, as set forth in Komatsu, 1:20-CV-07046, 45, to file a new complaint asserting his claims arising from the August 19, 2021 incident. The Court grants Plaintiff a further opportunity to file an amended complaint, as

explained in the February 2022 order to amend, that (1) makes a short and plain statement regarding his claims arising on July 25, 2017, and (2) shows cause why the claims should not be dismissed as time-barred. The amended complaint must be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, or if the amended complaint does not plead facts showing that equitable tolling is warranted, the Court will dismiss the claims in Plaintiff’s complaint as time-barred. CONCLUSION The Court directs the Clerk of Court to strike Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF 10). The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, within 30 days of the date of this order, that (1) makes a short and plain statement regarding his claims arising on July 25, 2017, and (2) shows cause why the claims should not be dismissed as time-barred. The amended

complaint must be submitted to the Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit and bear the same docket number as this order, 22-CV-0424 (LTS). For Plaintiff’s convenience, an amended complaint form is attached to this order. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, or if the amended complaint does not plead facts showing that equitable tolling is warranted, the Court will dismiss the claims in Plaintiff’s complaint as time-barred. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2022 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Write the full name of each plaintiff. _____CV_______________ (Include case number if one has been assigned) -against- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Do you want a jury trial? ☐ Yes ☐ No

Write the full name of each defendant. If you need more space, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in Section II.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Komatsu v. The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Komatsu v. The City of New York (Komatsu v. The City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Palm Beach Strategic Income, LP v. Salzman
457 F. App'x 40 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Sullivan v. Stein
487 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D. Connecticut, 2007)
Grimes v. Fremont General Corp.
933 F. Supp. 2d 584 (S.D. New York, 2013)