Peralta v. Salcedo

Background

Robinson Peralta submitted a letter asking Judge Jesse M. Furman to recuse himself, meaning to step aside from the case. The court treated the letter as a motion for recusal. The opinion states that Peralta was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees and that his amended complaint named Detectives Salcedo and Witten as defendants.

Rulings and directives

The court denied the recusal motion as frivolous. It cited decisions explaining that speculative assertions and prior rulings unfavorable to a party do not establish judicial bias or provide a basis to question the judge’s impartiality.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete U.S. Marshals Service process forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Salcedo and Witten. Because Peralta was proceeding without paying filing fees and could not have served those defendants until the court ordered summonses, the court extended the service deadline to May 16, 2022. The court stated that Peralta should request an extension if service was not completed by then.

The court also stated that the March 9, 2022 deadline remained in effect for Peralta either to file a second amended complaint or to oppose New York City’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court clarified that filing a second amended complaint was permitted but not required, and stated that any such complaint should include all claims against all defendants and the facts supporting those claims. This order did not decide the underlying claims or the pending motion to dismiss.