Perez Perez v. New York State Department of Transporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-03178
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perez Perez v. New York State Department of Transportation, Judge Abrams proposed dismissing several respondents and gave Perez time to respond.
Victor Manuel Perez Perez and the federal, state, and municipal agencies named as respondents, particularly the respondents the court proposed dismissing and the two federal agencies that would remain if the proposal took effect.
What happened
In Perez Perez v. New York State Department of Transportation, Victor Manuel Perez Perez, representing himself, filed two petitions seeking orders requiring action on his applications for legal permanent resident status and a commercial driver’s license.
The court said federal courts cannot issue these orders against state officials. It also said the petitions did not make allegations against the United States Department of Justice or the United States Department of Transportation. The court therefore said it intended to dismiss those agencies and the state and municipal respondents, while leaving the United States Department of Homeland Security and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services as the remaining respondents.
Judge Ronnie Abrams gave Perez until July 14, 2025, to explain why those respondents should not be dismissed or, alternatively, to file an amended petition naming only Homeland Security and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The opinion does not state that the dismissals had already been entered.
The detailed version
- Perez Perez v. New York State Department of Transporation · No. 1:25-cv-03178
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 1, 2025
Background
Victor Manuel Perez Perez, proceeding without a lawyer, brought the action against various federal, state, and municipal agencies. In two separate petitions, he sought writs of mandamus—court orders requiring government officials or agencies to perform a specified action. The petitions sought to compel adjudication of his application for legal permanent resident status and his application for a commercial driver’s license.
Court’s proposed respondent dismissals
The court explained that federal courts may not issue writs of mandamus against state officials. Because the action sought only mandamus relief, the court stated that it intended to dismiss the following State and Municipal Respondents: “New York State Department of Transportation,” “New York State Department of Motors Vehicle,” “Commissioner of the Department of NYC DMV,” “State of New Jersey,” “State of New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles,” “NYC Criminal Court in Queens,” and “Sadle River Municipal Court.” The court also stated that it intended to dismiss the United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of Transportation because the petitions contained no allegations against them.
The court stated that the remaining respondents would include only the United States Department of Homeland Security and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. A footnote said the court assumed Mr. Perez intended to sue the agencies identified in the petitions and that some names in the petitions’ caption were typographical errors.
Opportunity to respond and current status
The court did not immediately enter the proposed dismissals. It gave Mr. Perez until July 14, 2025, to submit a letter explaining why the United States Department of Justice, the United States Department of Transportation, and the State and Municipal Respondents should not be dismissed. Alternatively, he could file an amended petition naming only the United States Department of Homeland Security and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail him a copy of the order. The opinion does not state a later disposition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.