Peralta v. Salcedo

Background

Robinson Peralta proceeded without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. He sued the City of New York and two New York City Police Department officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by government officials, and under New York law. He alleged that police officers, neighborhood “block watchers,” and unidentified people had followed, intimidated, searched, and harassed him since 2010, after police allegedly accused him of killing someone.

The amended complaint asserted Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, including an equal-protection claim, as well as claims for malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Peralta sought $500 million in damages, an injunction, and a concealed-carry weapon. The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The two individual officers had not both appeared, and the court did not decide the claims against them.

Claims for damages against the City

For a city to be liable under Section 1983 for its employees’ unconstitutional conduct, a plaintiff must plausibly allege an official policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation. The court ruled that Peralta’s allegations did not plausibly show a persistent and widespread practice by City officials. Only a small number of the described incidents involved NYPD officers, and Peralta did not plausibly connect the “block watchers” or other unidentified people to the City. Because he did not adequately allege a City policy or custom, he also did not allege the required causal connection between such a policy or custom and his claimed injuries.

The court therefore dismissed Peralta’s Section 1983 claims for money damages against the City. The court expressly stated that it did not need to decide whether Peralta plausibly alleged an actual denial of his constitutional rights.

Claims for injunctive relief

The court also dismissed Peralta’s Section 1983 claims for injunctive relief against the City because he lacked standing. To seek an injunction, a plaintiff must show a likelihood of future harm and an official policy or equivalent conduct that the injunction could address. Because Peralta had not plausibly alleged an official City policy or equivalent, the court concluded that he lacked standing to pursue this relief.

State-law claims

The court dismissed Peralta’s state-law claims for defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. For claims accruing on or before April 30, 2018, the court held that they were untimely because Peralta filed the lawsuit nearly two years after the one-year-and-90-day limitations period expired. For claims accruing after April 30, 2018, the court held that Peralta had failed to file the required notice of claim. The court did not dismiss the state-law claims against the individual officers at that time because the City was the only defendant that had appeared.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims against the City. It declined to grant Peralta leave to amend again because he had already received an opportunity to amend, had not requested another amendment, and had not suggested additional facts that could cure the defects. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Peralta’s status allowing him to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate the City as a party and mail Peralta a copy of the order.