Perez v. Lilley
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-05378
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perez v. Lilley, Judge McMahon ruled that new claims could not be considered because the action was closed.
Reynaldo Perez, whose potential retaliation or disability-accommodation claims could not be considered in this closed action and had to be raised in the related proceeding or a new lawsuit.
What happened
In Perez v. Lilley, Reynaldo Perez challenged his treatment at Woodbourne Correctional Facility as a hearing-impaired prisoner. The court had previously directed that his complaint be treated as a contempt motion in a related case and administratively closed this action.
Perez later wrote that he had been transferred to Fishkill Correctional Facility as a sanction and that Fishkill could not accommodate his disability. The court said it was unclear whether he was alleging retaliation or inadequate accommodation.
Judge McMahon ruled that the court could not consider those claims under this closed case number. She directed Perez to bring a retaliation claim in a new lawsuit or raise an accommodation claim in the related case if appropriate, and denied fee-free appeal status because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Lilley · No. 1:19-cv-05378
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
Reynaldo Perez challenged his treatment at Woodbourne Correctional Facility as a hearing-impaired prisoner. In an earlier order, the court directed the Clerk of Court to refile the complaint as a motion for an order of contempt in a related proceeding, Clarkson, No. 91-CV-1792 (CM), and to administratively close this action. The motion in that related proceeding remained pending.
After this action was administratively closed, Perez sent a letter stating that he had been transferred to Fishkill Correctional Facility as a “sanction” and that Fishkill was not approved to accommodate an inmate with his disability. The court said it was unclear whether Perez alleged that the transfer was retaliation for filing this action or whether he wanted to assert a claim about the failure to accommodate his disability at Fishkill.
Ruling
The court held that it could not consider claims raised in Perez’s letter under this closed case number. It stated that a retaliation claim had to be brought in a new lawsuit. If Perez was alleging a failure to accommodate his disability at Fishkill, the court said he could amend his complaint in the related proceeding, if appropriate. The court emphasized that any claims had to be raised in that pending matter or in a new action.
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk to mail Perez a copy of the order and note service on the docket. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The order did not decide whether Perez was retaliated against or whether Fishkill failed to accommodate his disability.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.