Peralta v. Salcedo

Background

Robinson Peralta, who was proceeding without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, brought this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that New York City police officers followed and harassed him from 2010 through the filing of the complaint because they believed he had committed a murder. The court understood the complaint as raising equal-protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Peralta also alleged that he reported the alleged harassment to the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau, New York City’s Department of Investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but received no effective response. He specifically alleged that Detective Stone and FBI Agent Margaret Girard failed to investigate his complaints.

Claims Against City Agencies

The court dismissed the claims against the NYPD, the Internal Affairs Bureau, and the Department of Investigation because a New York City agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued. Because Peralta appeared to intend to sue the City of New York, the court directed the clerk to replace those agencies in the caption with the City of New York. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City may assert.

Claims Against the FBI

The court dismissed all claims against the FBI based on sovereign immunity. That doctrine generally prevents federal courts from hearing suits against the federal government and its agencies unless immunity has been waived. The court did not decide whether Peralta could bring a separate constitutional claim against Agent Girard under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bivens.

Claims Against Agent Girard and Detective Stone

The court held that the Constitution generally does not give a person a right to have the government investigate the person’s complaints. It identified two narrow exceptions: when the government takes a person into custody and holds the person against their will, or when the government helps create or increase a danger. The court found that Peralta alleged no facts bringing Agent Girard’s or Detective Stone’s conduct within either exception. It therefore dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim.

Claims Against Detectives Salcedo and Witten

A claim under Section 1983 requires facts showing that each defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that Peralta did not allege how Detectives Salcedo and Witten were personally involved. It therefore dismissed the claims against them for failure to state a claim, while granting Peralta 30 days to amend his complaint to provide additional facts.

Service and Amendment

Because Peralta was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court directed the clerk to issue a summons and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on the City of New York. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summons was issued.

The court explained that an amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. Any facts or claims Peralta wanted to preserve from the original complaint therefore had to be repeated in the amended complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed Peralta’s claims against the NYPD, the Internal Affairs Bureau, the Department of Investigation, the FBI, Agent Girard, and Detectives Stone, Salcedo, and Witten. It granted 30 days’ leave to amend the claims against Detectives Salcedo and Witten, added the City of New York as a defendant, and directed service on the City. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.