Pizarro v. U.S. Post Office

Background

Jose Pizarro brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the City of New York and Officers Renee Atsa, Tamara Harrison, and Demetrius Bryant violated his constitutional rights by interfering with his incoming and outgoing legal mail while he was incarcerated at Rikers Island. He alleged that defendants withheld legal mail after facility transfers, failed to deliver mail connected to pending cases, returned letters to religious organizations and legal institutions without sending them, and gave mail to other inmates without returning it.

Pizarro alleged that the mail interference caused him to receive three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), lose the ability to proceed without paying filing fees in other cases, and appeal civil matters dismissed for failure to prosecute. He sought $10 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages from each defendant, as well as an arrangement under which civilians would handle inmate mail.

On September 7, 2018, a settlement in an action involving Pizarro and the City of New York included a notarized general release. The release covered the City, its past and present officials, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, and released claims based on any matter occurring through the date of the release. The opinion states that Pizarro was represented by attorney Michael T. Ridge in connection with the release and that the release’s exclusions section was blank.

Pizarro did not respond to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion after the court ordered him to explain why the motion should not be treated as unopposed. The motion was therefore deemed unopposed.

Legal Standard

Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding a case without a trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute over an important fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court explained that the party seeking summary judgment must first show that no such factual dispute exists. The opposing party must then identify specific, admissible evidence showing that a trial is needed.

The court also explained that settlement agreements are contracts. Under the New York law applied in the case, a release that is clear, unambiguous, and knowingly and voluntarily entered is enforceable.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the September 7, 2018 general release barred Pizarro’s claims. It found the release clear and unambiguous and found sufficient facts showing that Pizarro entered it knowingly and voluntarily. Pizarro provided no evidence that the release was invalid because of pressure, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake.

The court relied in part on Pizarro’s representation by counsel and the notarization of the release by his attorney. It also noted that, in a prior related proceeding, Pizarro had admitted signing the same release. The court agreed with the earlier court’s conclusion that the release was valid and enforceable.

The court further held that the defendants fell within the release’s coverage and that the alleged incidents occurred before the release was signed. Because the claims in Pizarro’s second amended complaint were based on those earlier incidents, the release precluded the action.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not state that the motion or case was granted or dismissed with or without prejudice.