Peralta v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-09829
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Peralta v. City of New York, Judge Swain dismissed Robinson Peralta’s amended civil-rights complaint against the City.
Robinson Peralta’s claims against the City of New York were dismissed. The court declined to allow another amendment and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Peralta v. City of New York, Robinson Peralta sued the City over an allegedly inaccurate or incomplete police report about a car accident. He said the report omitted that a car he struck was double parked, and he sought money damages after losing his car and job.
The court had previously allowed Peralta, who represented himself, to amend his complaint. It concluded that the amended allegations still did not establish a valid claim under the federal civil-rights statute against the City or another state actor. The court explained that there is no government-created right to an investigation, an accurate police report, or an insurance settlement, and found no facts supporting the City’s liability.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint under the statute governing complaints filed without paying filing fees. She declined to allow another amendment because the defects could not be fixed. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Peralta v. The City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-09829
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 6, 2023
Background
Robinson Peralta, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against state actors for certain constitutional violations. The case arose from a September 11, 2022 car accident near Broadway and West 148th Street in Manhattan. Peralta alleged that another vehicle struck his car, causing his car to hit a double-parked vehicle. He said Police Officer Jean Paul Rosenbenz disregarded his account, initially stated that there were no witnesses or video evidence, and prepared an incident report that omitted the double-parking detail even after the report was amended to state that another driver had hit Peralta’s car.
Peralta alleged that a detective later could not identify the other driver and that a complaint to the Civilian Complaint Review Board was referred to Internal Affairs but closed without action. He claimed that he lost his car and job and was unable to sue the other driver for damages and lost wages because of Rosenbenz’s actions. He sought money damages from the City.
Earlier Order and Amended Complaint
In an earlier order, the court concluded that Peralta could not bring a § 1983 claim based on an alleged right to a government investigation, an accurate police report, or an insurance settlement. The court also found that the original complaint alleged no facts supporting municipal liability, meaning legal responsibility by the City for the alleged conduct. The court nevertheless allowed Peralta to amend his complaint to provide facts supporting a § 1983 claim arising from the accident and its aftermath.
The court found that the amended complaint was substantially similar to the original pleading. It concluded that the amended allegations still did not establish a viable § 1983 claim against the City or any other state actor.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of a complaint filed without paying the filing fee when it fails to state a legally sufficient claim. Because Peralta had already received an opportunity to amend and the defects could not be cured with another amendment, the court declined to grant further leave to amend.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.