Peralta v. Khouri

Background

The judgment states that Defendants Khouri and El Moackly filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff Jimy Peralta’s amended complaint. It also addresses claims alleged against Defendant John Doe. The judgment says Peralta had already been given an opportunity to amend his pleading and did not oppose either motion to dismiss. Based on those circumstances, the court found that allowing another amendment would be futile.

Rulings

The court granted Khouri’s and El Moackly’s motions to dismiss the amended complaint. It also dismissed the claims alleged against John Doe under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The court dismissed with prejudice Peralta’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and denial of due process. “With prejudice” means the judgment states those claims are dismissed in a way that bars their renewal in the same action. The court dismissed without prejudice Peralta’s state-law negligence and medical-malpractice claims because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state claims alongside federal claims. The judgment does not state that those state-law claims were decided on their merits.

Appeal and Case Status

Judge Philip Halpern’s judgment states that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court therefore denied fee-free appeal status. The case was closed.