Perez Perez v. New York State DMV Driving Improvement Unit
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04606
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Perez Perez v. New York State DMV Driving Improvement Unit was dismissed without prejudice as duplicative, Judge Swain ruled.
Victor Manuel Perez Perez and the New York State DMV Driving Improvement Unit; this action was dismissed without prejudice, while the substantially similar earlier action remained pending.
What happened
In Perez Perez v. New York State DMV Driving Improvement Unit, Victor Manuel Perez Perez, representing himself, sued the New York State DMV Driving Improvement Unit for alleged federal constitutional violations.
Perez Perez had already filed a substantially similar case against the same defendant, and that earlier case was pending before the same court. The court found that litigating this action would serve no useful purpose.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed this action without prejudice as duplicative. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Perez Perez v. New York State DMV Driving Improvement Unit · No. 1:25-cv-04606
- Laura Swain
- June 3, 2025
Background
Victor Manuel Perez Perez, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims alleging federal constitutional violations against the New York State DMV Driving Improvement Unit. The opinion does not provide further details about the underlying events or claims.
Earlier Related Action
Perez Perez had previously filed a substantially similar action against the same defendant. That earlier action, No. 1:25-CV-4370 (LTS), was pending before Judge Swain. The court stated that the claims in this case were similar to, if not the same as, those in the earlier action.
Ruling
The court dismissed this action without prejudice as duplicative. This means the dismissal did not bar refiling, although the opinion does not otherwise explain what future filing options may be available. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.