Perez v. Doe 1
- John Koeltl
- 1:17-cv-05200
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Perez v. Doe 1, Judge Koeltl granted defendants’ summary-judgment motions because Perez’s release barred his civil-rights claims.
Felipe Perez’s civil-rights claims against the defendant employees of the City of New York were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants obtained summary judgment based on the general release Perez signed.
What happened
In Perez v. Doe 1, Felipe Perez, who was representing himself, alleged that City of New York employees violated his constitutional rights during incidents at Rikers Island and the Manhattan Detention Complex in 2015 and 2016. The defendants asked for summary judgment based on a release Perez signed after receiving $7,500 in a settlement.
The court found that the release clearly covered all civil-rights claims against the City and its employees arising from events through February 20, 2018. Because Perez’s claims concerned earlier events, and he had signed the release while represented by a lawyer, the court held that the release barred his claims. Perez did not respond to the summary-judgment motions by the extended deadline.
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed Perez’s complaint with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment, close the pending motions, and close the case.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Doe 1 · No. 1:17-cv-05200
- John Koeltl
- Dec. 2, 2019
Background
Felipe Perez, proceeding without a lawyer in this case, sued employees of the City of New York. He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights approximately ten times while he was incarcerated at Rikers Island and the Manhattan Detention Complex. His claims included excessive force, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, failure to protect, failure to intervene, and deliberate indifference to conditions of confinement.
On February 7 and February 15, 2017, Perez filed personal-injury claims with the City of New York Office of the Comptroller concerning an alleged November 29, 2016 assault by an officer that caused a fractured hand. The parties settled those claims on February 20, 2018. Under the settlement, Perez received $7,500 and signed a general release. The release discharged the City and its past and present employees from all liability and claims alleging civil-rights violations, whether known or unknown, arising from events through February 20, 2018. Perez was represented by counsel when he signed the release, and the release stated that he had read and fully understood it.
Perez had filed this case on July 10, 2017. His complaint alleged civil-rights violations based on assaults and other conduct occurring in 2015 and 2016. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court extended Perez’s deadline to respond to October 19, 2019, but no response was received.
Legal standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must generally view disputed facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. The court also must give special consideration to a person representing himself, but that person still must provide evidence sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Court’s analysis
The court applied New York law, under which a release that is clear and unambiguous and entered knowingly and voluntarily will be enforced. The court found that the release’s language was clear and unambiguous. It expressly covered civil-rights claims against the City and its employees and included events occurring through the date Perez signed it.
Because all of the violations alleged in Perez’s complaint occurred in 2015 or 2016, they fell within the release’s coverage. The court also found nothing indicating that Perez did not knowingly and willingly sign the release. His representation by counsel supported the validity of the release.
Ruling
Judge John G. Koeltl held that the release barred Perez’s claims. The defendants’ motions for summary judgment were granted, and Perez’s claims and complaint were dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the action with prejudice, close the pending motions, and close the case.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.