Peralta v. Salcedo
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-06395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Peralta v. City of New York, Judge Furman ordered more information to help serve Salcedo and asked the parties to consider magistrate-judge consent.
Robinson Peralta, Hansel Salcedo, Daniel Wynne, the New York City Law Department, and the assigned magistrate judge are affected by the order’s service and pretrial procedures.
What happened
In Peralta v. City of New York, Robinson Peralta, without a lawyer, alleges under a federal civil-rights law that New York City police officers followed and harassed him for ten years without cause. He sued Hansel Salcedo and Daniel Wynne.
The Marshals Service could not serve Salcedo at the address provided by the New York City Law Department. The court ordered the Law Department to provide Peralta and the court with more information to help serve Salcedo, including an updated address if appropriate, within 30 days.
The court also referred the case to a magistrate judge for general pretrial matters and directed the parties to discuss whether they would voluntarily allow that judge to handle the entire case. Judge Jesse M. Furman stated that refusing consent would have no negative consequences.
The detailed version
- Peralta v. Salcedo · No. 1:21-cv-06395
- Jesse Furman
- July 22, 2022
Background
Robinson Peralta is proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. He brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state or local officials. Peralta alleges that officers employed by the New York City Police Department followed and harassed him without cause during a ten-year period. He names Hansel Salcedo and Daniel Wynne as defendants.
Service on Salcedo
The U.S. Marshals Service was unable to serve Salcedo at the address that the New York City Law Department had provided in response to an earlier court order. The court explained that, under a prior appellate decision, a person proceeding without a lawyer is entitled to the district court’s help identifying a defendant. The court found that Peralta’s amended complaint provided enough information for the Law Department, which represents Wynne, to identify Salcedo.
The court ordered the New York City Law Department to provide additional information that would allow Salcedo to be served, including an updated address as appropriate. The Law Department had to provide the information to Peralta and the court within 30 days of the order.
Pretrial referral and possible consent
By a separate order entered the same day, the court referred the case to the assigned magistrate judge for general pretrial purposes. The magistrate judge would supervise scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement.
The court ordered the parties to discuss whether they would voluntarily consent to having the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings. If all parties consented and the court approved the required form, the magistrate judge would replace the district judge and could decide the case, including entering final judgment. The court stated that a party who did not consent would face no adverse consequences. If both parties consented, defense counsel would have to file the completed consent form within two weeks after the defendant entered an appearance.
Disposition
The court ordered the Law Department to provide information to help serve Salcedo, referred the case for general pretrial purposes, and directed the parties to discuss consent to full proceedings before the magistrate judge. The order did not decide the merits of Peralta’s allegations. Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the order to Peralta.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.