Peralta v. The City of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-10785
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Peralta v. City of New York: Judge Furman denied Peralta’s request to undo the prior dismissal and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Robinson Peralta’s request to vacate the prior dismissal was denied, and his permission to appeal without paying the required fees was denied. The earlier dismissal remains in place.
What happened
In Robinson Peralta v. City of New York, the court had previously dismissed Peralta’s constitutional-rights lawsuit because an earlier judgment barred it, some claims were filed too late, and some laws did not allow a private lawsuit. The appeals court upheld that dismissal.
Peralta, who was representing himself, asked the court to undo the earlier dismissal under a rule allowing relief from a judgment in exceptional circumstances. He argued that the court had not followed the appeals court’s instructions and challenged the reasons for the dismissal.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the request because Peralta was repeating issues already decided rather than showing an exceptional reason to reopen the case. The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Peralta permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
The detailed version
- Peralta v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-10785
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 20, 2025
Background
Robinson Peralta, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that the City of New York and other defendants violated his constitutional rights. In an April 18, 2024 order, the court dismissed the action during statutory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court concluded that the claims were barred by claim preclusion, a rule preventing a party from relitigating claims that were already resolved; that any claims not barred were time barred; or that the statutes on which Peralta relied did not provide a private cause of action.
Peralta appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment and agreed that dismissal of the complaint was warranted. The appeals court also found no reversible error in the procedure used by the district court.
Motion under Rule 60(b)
Peralta then moved under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate, or set aside, the April 18, 2024 dismissal order. The district court explained that Rule 60(b) relief is discretionary and generally requires exceptional circumstances. Peralta argued that the district court had failed to follow the Second Circuit’s procedural directives. The court rejected that argument because the Second Circuit had found no reversible procedural error.
The court also determined that Peralta’s remaining objections merely attempted to relitigate the merits of the prior dismissal. A Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or to revisit issues that have already been decided.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Peralta’s Rule 60(b) motion. The court separately certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied Peralta permission to proceed with an appeal without paying the required fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail the order to Peralta.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.