Peralta v. The City of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-10785
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Peralta v. City of New York, Judge Furman denied Peralta’s motions to vacate and recuse, calling them frivolous and warning of possible sanctions.
Robinson Peralta, who was proceeding without counsel; the order also concerns the defendants and the court’s handling of further filings in the case.
What happened
In Peralta v. City of New York, Robinson Peralta, who was representing himself, filed another request to undo the court’s earlier dismissal of his case and asked Judge Jesse M. Furman to step aside.
The court had previously dismissed Peralta’s constitutional-rights case, and the Second Circuit affirmed that judgment. The court also had already denied an earlier request to undo the dismissal. In this order, the court denied both of Peralta’s new motions as frivolous.
Judge Jesse M. Furman warned that additional frivolous filings could lead to sanctions, including a ban on filing further litigation in the case. The court also stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Peralta permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Peralta v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-10785
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 4, 2025
Background
Robinson Peralta, proceeding without counsel, alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. In an April 18, 2024 opinion and order, the court dismissed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court concluded that the claims were barred by claim preclusion, a rule generally preventing a party from relitigating claims resolved in an earlier case. The court also concluded that any claims not precluded were either filed too late or based on statutes that did not provide a private cause of action.
Peralta appealed, and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment, agreeing that dismissal was warranted. Peralta then moved under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate the April 18, 2024 dismissal order. The court denied that motion on February 20, 2025.
Motions at Issue
Peralta filed another motion to vacate the dismissal order and a motion to recuse Judge Furman. After reviewing the motion papers, the court denied both motions as frivolous. The opinion does not provide additional details about the specific arguments in those papers.
Warnings and Appeal Certification
The court cautioned that further frivolous filings could result in sanctions, including a litigation bar. A litigation bar is a restriction on bringing additional litigation, and the court cited authority allowing such sanctions against litigants who abuse the judicial process.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status, meaning Peralta could not appeal without paying the required filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the docket entries for the two motions and mail Peralta a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.