Komatsu v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 16 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20 Civ. 8004 (ER),20 Civ. 8933 (ER),20 Civ. 7502 (ER),20 Civ. 7046 (ER),20 Civ. 9151 (ER),20 Civ. 9154 (ER),20 Civ. 9354 (ER),20 Civ. 8540 (ER),20 Civ. 8251 (ER) |
| Parties | TOWAKI KOMATSU, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Towaki Komatsu, proceeding pro se, has brought suit against the City of New York and over 100 other defendants, including police officers, elected officials, and approximately sixty-eight Doe defendants, alleging numerous violations of his civil rights. Before the Court are motions to dismiss by the City of New York (the “City†) and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance. For the reasons discussed below, both motions are GRANTED.
This is a consolidated action encompassing nine separate cases filed by Komatsu between August 29 and November 6, 2020. In each of his complaints, Komatsu alleges that his First Amendment rights were violated by City officials at various public events. He appears to directly raise allegations stemming from at least sixteen public events across the nine complaints, though many more events-and allegations of misconduct stemming therefrom-are described in detail. In addition to these First Amendment violations, Komatsu alleges numerous other violations of his rights, including First Amendment retaliation, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations (proffering both substantive and procedural due process theories), abuse of process, and municipal liability pursuant to Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Komatsu's complaints amount to a total of 1, 713 pages and include dozens, if not hundreds, of links to days' worth of video footage, as well many lengthy diatribes against the defendants and others not named in the case. Despite the surfeit of background information, the Court understands Komatsu's complaints to allege that his rights were violated by various restrictions on his ability to either attend or speak in various public meetings, beginning on August 30, 2017. See, e.g., Case No. 7046 at 8 ().[1]
The complaints allege violations stemming from several different kinds of public meetings. First, Komatsu references “town hall” events, in which a City Council district's legislators (and/or the mayor) are made available for questions regarding issues impacting their districts. See, e.g., Case No. 8004 at Ex. A (flyer for September 28, 2017 town hall event with Mayor de Blasio and several councilmembers). Second, he references New York City “Resource Fairs, ” in which members of the public are permitted to “meet with top city commissioners and senior staff . . . to address [attendees'] questions and concerns.” Id. at Ex. B. Third, he references public hearings regarding particular pieces of legislation in City Hall's “Blue Room, ” which provide opportunities for the public to comment on legislation after it is passed. See, e.g., Case No. 8540 at 10. Fourth, he references City Council committee meetings, which are held for the purposes of discussing particular issues and sometimes include public comment sessions. See generally Case No. 9154; see also Doc. 89 at 2 ().[2] Finally, he briefly references a press conference held on October 3, 2017 at the steps of City Hall by then-City Councilmember Jumaane Williams. See Case No. 8251 at 112.
The common thread in Komatsu's complaints is that he has attempted to engage in “whistleblowing” against Mayor de Blasio and/or other defendants at these public events. By whistleblowing, Komatsu appears to refer both to oral testimony and distribution of literature. See, e.g., Case No. 7046 at 97 (). The subjects of Komatsu's whistleblowing include his desire to remove Bill de Blasio as mayor, see, e.g., Case No. 8251 at 117, allegations of misconduct against the City's Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) regarding conditions in his building and a prior lawsuit he filed against the HRA, see, e.g., Case No. 7046 at 28; Case No. 7502 at 142-143, and his desire to spread public awareness about the fact that defendant Howard Redmond, a member of the New York City Police Department, was named in another civil suit in this district, see, e.g., Case No. 8004 at 11. Komatsu also alleges that these whistleblowing activities-as well as his similar actions at other events dating back to at least April 2017-provide the basis for retaliation, “voter suppression, ” and numerous other claims. See, e.g., Case No. 8004 at 43-44.
In describing his claims, Komatsu generally emphasizes alleged violations of his First Amendment rights, but also frequently brings causes of action under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In all complaints, he alleges that his right to engage in whistleblowing activities was violated, although the precise circumstances of each event somewhat varies. In some cases, the alleged violation is that he was prohibited from entering the premises at which a given event was held. See, e.g., Case No. 8540 at 146 ().[3] In others, he acknowledges that he was permitted to enter the premises, but appears to allege that he was made to sit in an overflow room. See, e.g., Case No. 7502 at 130-31 (). Finally, in at least three cases, he alleges being removed from the public forum or otherwise having his testimony cut short. See Case No. 7046 at 57-58 (), Case No. 8540 at 217 (); and Case No. 9154 at 154-55 (describing an exchange with then-City Councilmember Richie Torres in which Komatsu was “coerced . . . to reluctantly leave that room on my own and lawfully wait directly outside of it to confront Mr. Torres and other members of the City Council as they exited . . . .”).
Most of these public events-fourteen out of the sixteen alleged-occurred in late summer and fall 2017. However, Komatsu also alleges that he attended two events in 2019 at which his rights were violated for similar reasons. See Case No. 8540 (); Case No. 9154 ().
Komatsu's claims against Manhattan District Attorney Vance appear to stem from the fact that Vance has not initiated criminal prosecutions or otherwise taken action against any of the other defendants for their alleged actions in this case. Komatsu states that on October 3, 2017, he spoke to Vance and defendant Lawrence Byrne at a New York City Bar Association event, at which he “specifically and clearly asked both of them to intervene on my behalf to end the NYPD's illegal practice of preventing me from attending public forums that the Mayor was conducting.” Case No. 8251 at 41. He alleges that Vance responded that he “wouldn't do so and didn't know if such acts against me violated any laws.” Id. at 42. Komatsu purportedly responded that the actions of other defendants in this case constituted violations of federal criminal statutes, to which Vance is alleged to have “irrelevantly stated that he wasn't a federal prosecutor instead of agreeing to properly and promptly do his job . . . .” Id.
On this basis, Komatsu raised twenty-one causes of action against Vance, including First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, public and private nuisance, and violations of the Hatch Act.[4]
Komatsu filed the first complaint in this consolidated action, Case No. 7046, on August 29, 2020. Between that date and November 6, 2020, he filed eight related cases. On November 17, 2020, the Court ordered Komatsu to show cause why filing restrictions should not be imposed, given his frequent and voluminous filings concerning issues collateral or irrelevant to this consolidated case. Doc. 29. Following a hearing on December 15, 2020, the Court required Komatsu to comply with certain restrictions regarding future letters or motions filed with the Court. Doc. 45. At that conference, the Court also granted the City and Vance leave to file the instant motions to dismiss, and took under advisement a letter motion that Komatsu had filed the previous day, in which he sought preliminary injunctive relief to bar the City from “continuing to violate [his] constitutional rights as they pertain to public forums.” Doc. 44 at 3. The Court construed this as a preliminary injunction motion, which it denied on January 26, 2021. Doc. 89.
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, a complaint “shall contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The “principal function of pleadings under...
To continue reading
Request your trial