Perkins v. Presley
- Vyskocil
- 1:18-cv-03590
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Perkins v. Presley, Judge Vyskocil denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion without prejudice because they failed to provide required notice to pro se plaintiff.
The defendants may refile their summary-judgment motion after complying with the required notice rule. Perkins receives new deadlines to oppose any renewed motion, and the order does not resolve the merits of his constitutional claims.
What happened
In Perkins v. Presley, Derrick Perkins, who represented himself, sued officials of the New York City Department of Correction, alleging constitutional violations. The defendants asked the court to enter summary judgment in their favor, which would end the case without a trial if granted.
The court found that the defendants did not follow a local rule requiring them to provide a self-represented plaintiff with the full texts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1. The court also found that Perkins’s short opposition did not show that he understood the requirements and consequences of responding to the motion.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the defendants’ motion without prejudice, allowing them to file it again after complying with the notice rule. The court set new deadlines for the defendants’ motion, Perkins’s opposition, and the defendants’ reply.
The detailed version
- Perkins v. Presley · No. 1:18-cv-03590
- Vyskocil
- June 21, 2021
Background
Derrick Perkins, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, brought an action against several officials of the New York City Department of Correction. He alleged various constitutional violations. The defendants moved for summary judgment, a procedure for resolving claims when the moving party argues that the evidence shows there is no need for a trial. Perkins opposed the motion with a three-page letter and a one-page affidavit.
Reason for the ruling
The court held that the defendants failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 56.2. That rule requires a represented party moving for summary judgment against a self-represented party to serve and file a notice containing the full texts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1. Although the defendants filed a notice, they did not include the required rule texts.
The court could not conclude that this omission was harmless. Perkins’s opposition did not include a statement responding to the factual assertions in the defendants’ required factual statement or supporting evidence. The court found that his papers reflected, at most, a good-faith attempt to follow the incomplete notice he received. Because the notice did not include Local Civil Rule 56.1, the court presumed that Perkins was unaware of his obligation to respond directly to the defendants’ factual assertions.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice to refiling it in compliance with Local Civil Rule 56.2. The defendants were ordered to file any renewed motion by June 28, 2021; Perkins’s opposition was due July 28, 2021; and the defendants’ reply was due August 11, 2021. The order did not decide whether Perkins’s constitutional claims had merit. The clerk was directed to terminate the defendants’ motion from the docket and mail Perkins a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.