Valdiviezo v. The City of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:15-cv-03902
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Valdiviezo v. City of New York, U.S. District Judge Nathan granted defendants’ summary judgment and dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice because a release barred them.
Mario Valdiviezo’s remaining constitutional claims against the City of New York and the unknown medical staff members were dismissed with prejudice; the defendants obtained summary judgment, and the case was closed.
What happened
Valdiviezo v. The City of New York concerned Mario Valdiviezo’s claims that conditions during his incarceration violated his constitutional rights. The remaining claims involved unsanitary prison showers and unknown medical staff’s treatment after he fell in a shower.
The defendants argued that a general release Valdiviezo signed on May 23, 2015 barred the claims. Valdiviezo argued that the release was invalid because he did not sign it knowingly and voluntarily. The court found that the release was clear, Valdiviezo had a lawyer when he signed it, and he received $3,000; it also found that his unsupported statements about his education, English ability, and understanding did not create a factual dispute.
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Valdiviezo’s remaining claims with prejudice. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case, and denied him permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Valdiviezo v. The City of New York · No. 1:15-cv-03902
- Alison Nathan
- May 29, 2020
Background
Mario Valdiviezo brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by government officials, against the City of New York and individual defendants. He alleged three incidents during his incarceration: a fall in a prison shower and inadequate medical care afterward; two floods of his cell block involving sewage, human waste, feces, and polluted water; and one night of sleep disruption caused by another prisoner’s constant screaming.
The court had previously dismissed the Third Amended Complaint. The Second Circuit affirmed most of that ruling but sent back two matters: the claim against two unknown medical staff members and the City-related claim concerning unsanitary shower conditions. Those were the remaining claims addressed by the summary judgment motion in this order.
Before this action was filed, Valdiviezo had settled an unrelated state-court case involving the City and its employees. On May 23, 2015, he signed a general release in exchange for $3,000. The release covered all claims against the City and its officers, employees, agents, and other listed representatives arising from anything that occurred through that date. Valdiviezo was represented by an attorney when he signed it.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion, but that party must present admissible evidence that could allow a reasonable jury to rule in that party’s favor. Unsupported assertions and speculation are not enough.
Analysis
The defendants argued that the release barred Valdiviezo’s remaining claims. Valdiviezo argued that the release was invalid because it was not entered knowingly and voluntarily.
The court said it did not need to decide whether state or federal law governed the release’s validity because the result would be the same under either standard. For this order, the court applied federal law because the parties had accepted that approach. Under that law, whether a release was knowing and voluntary depends on the totality of the circumstances. The relevant factors include the plaintiff’s education and business experience, the time available to review the agreement, the plaintiff’s role in negotiating its terms, the agreement’s clarity, whether the plaintiff had legal advice, and what the plaintiff received in exchange for giving up the claims.
The court found that the release’s clarity, Valdiviezo’s representation by counsel, and the $3,000 payment strongly supported enforcement. The one-page release expressly covered all claims arising from matters occurring through May 23, 2015, and stated above Valdiviezo’s signature that he had read and fully understood it.
Valdiviezo asserted in his legal brief and a factual statement that his reading and writing skills were below a tenth-grade level, that he received the release on the day he signed it, that he was not fluent in English, and that the release was not translated. He also asserted that he did not understand the release. The court found that these assertions were not supported by evidence in the record. Because a legal brief is not evidence and the unsupported statements did not establish a genuine factual dispute, the court concluded that no reasonable juror could find the release invalid on the record before it.
The court further concluded that the release covered the remaining claims because each arose from events occurring before May 23, 2015. The court stated that the relevant issue was when the claims arose, not when Valdiviezo filed the amended pleadings.
Disposition
The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Valdiviezo’s remaining claims with prejudice. It directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. A copy of the order was to be mailed to Valdiviezo.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.