Perry v. Gonzalez
- Louis Stanton
- 1:24-cv-06973
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Perry v. Gonzalez: Judge Stanton dismissed Perry’s challenge to a state eviction ruling because federal review and the requested injunction were unavailable.
Derrick Perry’s federal case was dismissed, leaving his challenge to the state-court eviction ruling unresolved in this action; Judge Alberto Gonzalez was not subject to the requested injunction.
What happened
In Perry v. Gonzalez, Derrick Perry, representing himself, sued Judge Alberto Gonzalez over an adverse ruling in Perry’s state-court eviction proceedings. Perry argued that, as a “Sovereign Citizen,” he was not subject to that court’s jurisdiction and asked a federal court to declare the eviction order invalid and require the state court to dismiss the case.
The court explained that federal district courts generally cannot function as appeals courts reviewing state-court judgments. It also said that an injunction against the judge was unavailable because Perry identified no violated declaratory decree, could seek relief through state-court appeals, and challenged only past conduct rather than an ongoing violation. The opinion noted that it was unclear whether the state-court order was final or whether an appeal was pending.
The court dismissed the complaint, declined to allow an amendment, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. Judge Louis L. Stanton issued the order on May 19, 2025.
The detailed version
- Perry v. Gonzalez · No. 1:24-cv-06973
- Louis Stanton
- May 19, 2025
Background
Derrick Perry, proceeding without a lawyer and authorized to proceed without prepaying filing fees, sued Judge Alberto Gonzalez. Gonzalez had presided over Perry’s state-court landlord-tenant eviction proceedings. Perry alleged that the apartment he rented was infested with mold and that 22 Park View LLC had brought an eviction lawsuit against him for nonpayment of rent. He also alleged that 22 Park View LLC was not the proper party and lacked a contract.
Perry’s principal theory was that he was a “Sovereign Citizen,” rather than a United States or Fourteenth Amendment citizen, and that the state court therefore lacked jurisdiction over him. He sought only declaratory and injunctive relief: a declaration concerning alleged defects in Gonzalez’s order and an order requiring the New York Civil Court to dismiss the eviction case for lack of personal or subject-matter jurisdiction. The complaint invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed without prepayment of fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court treated Perry’s request as an attempted federal appeal from the state-court ruling. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction over a case brought by a state-court loser who complains of an injury caused by a state-court judgment and asks the federal court to review and reject that judgment. The court found that Perry alleged an adverse state-court ruling and asked the federal court to reject it. The court stated, however, that the opinion did not establish whether the state-court order was a final judgment or whether Perry had a pending state-court appeal. If there was a final judgment and no pending appeal, the court said, it would lack subject-matter jurisdiction under that doctrine.
The court separately held that injunctive relief against Gonzalez was unavailable. Section 1983 generally bars injunctive relief against a judicial officer for acts taken in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. The court found that neither exception applied: no declaratory decree was at issue, and Perry could seek relief through state-court appeals. The court also concluded that Perry complained only about Gonzalez’s past conduct and did not seek to prevent an ongoing or future violation of federal law. To the extent Perry sought to stop the eviction proceedings, the court noted that the Anti-Injunction Act also generally bars federal courts from enjoining state-court eviction proceedings.
Disposition
The court concluded that Perry’s argument that the state court lacked jurisdiction because he considered himself a “Sovereign Citizen” had no legal validity. It determined that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment, declined to grant leave to amend, dismissed the complaint, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.