Perez v. Abrams
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-04065
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Perez Perez v. Abrams: Judge Liman denied renewed fee-waiver motions and ordered Perez Perez to explain why his complaint should not be dismissed.
Victor Manuel Perez Perez’s renewed requests to proceed without paying the filing fee were denied, and he must respond by November 10, 2025, to the court’s order to explain why his complaint should not be dismissed. Judge Ronnie Abrams remains the defendant in the case, which was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Victor Manuel Perez Perez v. Ronnie Abrams, Victor Manuel Perez Perez sued Judge Ronnie Abrams, alleging bias and a conspiracy to violate his due-process and civil rights. He sought money damages, claiming Judge Abrams delayed an order in Perez Perez’s related case about his commercial driver’s license and green-card applications.
The court had previously denied Perez Perez’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee, and he later paid the fee to file the complaint. After an appeal about that issue was dismissed, he renewed his requests to proceed without paying the fee. The court denied those renewed requests.
Judge Liman ordered Perez Perez to explain by November 10, 2025, why the complaint should not be dismissed for failing to state a legal claim and why the case should not be closed. The order did not dismiss the complaint, but it warned that the court may do so if he does not respond on time.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Abrams · No. 1:25-cv-04065
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 9, 2025
Background
Victor Manuel Perez Perez sued Judge Ronnie Abrams, alleging a conspiracy to violate his due-process and civil rights. The alleged conduct concerned a separate, related proceeding in which Perez Perez sought orders requiring federal, state, and municipal agencies to act on his applications for a commercial driver’s license and a green card. Perez Perez alleged that Judge Abrams showed bias and delayed an order in that proceeding. He sought compensatory and punitive damages.
Fee-waiver history
Perez Perez initially asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that request because he had not shown that he lacked enough assets to pay the fee. He then paid the filing fee, allowing the complaint to be filed. He later submitted two additional requests for permission to proceed without paying the fee. The court previously declined to consider those filings while Perez Perez’s appeal concerning the original fee-waiver denial was pending. The Court of Appeals later dismissed that appeal after Perez Perez did not pay the required appellate filing fee, and jurisdiction returned to the district court.
Legal standards
The court explained that the federal filing-fee statute permits a plaintiff to proceed without prepaying fees after showing an inability to pay. It also requires dismissal at any time if the action is frivolous, fails to state a legal claim, or seeks money damages from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court further explained that federal judges generally have absolute immunity from damages claims based on their judicial conduct, and that allegations of bad faith or malice do not remove that immunity.
Ruling and next step
The court denied Perez Perez’s renewed requests to proceed without paying the filing fee. It ordered him to show cause—that is, explain—by November 10, 2025, why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and why the case should not be closed. The court stated that it may dismiss the case if he does not respond on time. This order did not itself dismiss the complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the two renewed fee-waiver motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.