Perez v. Oxford University
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-04844
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Perez v. Oxford University, Judge Nathan denied Perez’s restraining-order request because it lacked required notice-related materials, specificity, and factual support.
Eric Perez’s request for a restraining order was denied. The order concerned numerous people and entities identified in his request, none of whom were named defendants in this action.
What happened
In Perez v. Oxford University, Eric Perez, representing himself, asked the court for a restraining order against numerous people and organizations that he said were conspiring to track, harass, and harm him. Those people and organizations were not defendants in this case.
The court found that Perez had not met the requirements for obtaining a restraining order without advance notice. He did not provide the required certification, and his request did not clearly identify the acts to be stopped or all the people and organizations to be restrained. The court also found that his unsworn, unsupported allegations were too conclusory and speculative.
Judge Alison J. Nathan adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied Perez’s request for a restraining order. The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Oxford University · No. 1:21-cv-04844
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 8, 2022
Background
Eric Perez, acting without a lawyer, brought this action against several defendants, including Oxford University, Astrazeneca, and several employees of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. He later filed a six-page letter seeking a restraining order against numerous individuals and entities, including government agencies, private organizations, and other groups. The entities and individuals listed in the restraining-order request were not named defendants in this action. Perez alleged that these groups were involved in a conspiracy to track, harass, and harm him.
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger recommended denying the request because Perez’s allegations were conclusory and speculative and lacked factual support. Perez later filed another letter repeating the allegations.
Court’s Analysis
The court adopted the recommendation and denied the request. It first held that Perez failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which governs restraining orders. Because he sought an order without giving advance notice to the people and entities who would be restrained, his request had to include specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint showing that immediate and irreparable harm would occur before the other side could respond. It also had to include a written certification describing efforts to provide notice and why notice should not be required. The court found that the required certification had not been provided.
The court also held that the request lacked the specificity required by Rule 65. A restraining order must identify in reasonable detail the acts being prohibited or required and the people or entities covered by the order. Perez’s request referred broadly to every other corporation with which he had entered an agreement or that he used, as well as known and unknown officials allegedly directing the conspiracy. The court found that this was not specific enough.
Finally, the court explained that issuing a restraining order requires consideration of whether the requesting party is likely to succeed on the merits. A restraining order is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing by the person seeking it. The court found that Perez’s conclusory and unsworn allegations, without supporting evidence, did not meet that standard.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Perez’s motion for a restraining order and stated that the ruling resolved Docket Number 62. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The clerk was directed to mail Perez a copy of the order and record the mailing on the public docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.