Perdigon v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-01828
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Perdigon v. United States, Judge Swain denied reconsideration of a fee-waiver denial and emergency relief, requiring Perdigon to decide whether to continue.
Andrew Perdigon, who must decide whether to continue the action after paying the filing fees; the named defendants are also affected by the denial of emergency relief, and the case was not closed by this order.
What happened
In Perdigon v. United States, Andrew Perdigon, who was representing himself, sued numerous government, corporate, and individual defendants. He asked to proceed without paying filing fees, but the court found that he had enough assets to pay them. He later asked the court to reconsider that decision and requested emergency relief, including arrests, medical treatment, possible surgery, and sealing of medical information.
The court denied reconsideration because Perdigon did not show that the court had overlooked controlling law or important facts, or that any other listed reason justified changing the decision. The court also denied emergency relief because the allegations did not show a valid claim or a sufficient likelihood of success, serious questions for litigation, or a balance of hardships favoring relief.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Perdigon to tell the court within 30 days whether he wanted to continue the case after the denial of his request to proceed without paying fees. If he chose not to continue, the court said it would return his filing fees and close the case; if he continued, he could be responsible for service fees.
The detailed version
- Perdigon v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-01828
- Laura Swain
- May 1, 2023
Background
Andrew Perdigon filed the action representing himself and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. He later filed an amended complaint naming the United States, federal and state officials, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, private companies, individuals, police officers, deputy sheriffs, and unidentified alleged co-conspirators as defendants. The opinion describes allegations involving telepathy, electronic brain-signal transmissions, biological data, copyright, and objects allegedly placed in his body.
On March 13, 2023, the court denied Perdigon’s request to proceed without paying fees because his application showed that he had sufficient assets. The court directed him to pay $402 in filing and administrative fees. Perdigon paid those fees and then moved for reconsideration. He also moved for emergency relief.
Motion for Reconsideration
The court treated Perdigon’s filing as a request for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. Under the local rule, reconsideration requires showing that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. Under Rule 60(b), relief may be available for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. Relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the catchall provision, requires a reasonable filing time and extraordinary circumstances.
The court held that Perdigon had not shown that it overlooked controlling decisions or relevant facts. It also held that he had not shown that any of the first five Rule 60(b) grounds applied or that extraordinary circumstances justified relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court therefore denied the motion for reconsideration, and stated that the denial of Perdigon’s request to proceed without paying fees remained proper.
Motion for Emergency Relief
Perdigon sought preliminary emergency injunctive relief, including an arrest warrant for 15 defendants, medical treatment from providers of his choice, emergency surgery if imaging showed objects in his body, and sealing of medical records or findings he chose to submit as evidence.
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary court order issued before final judgment. The court said Perdigon had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation combined with a balance of hardships strongly favoring him. The court found that the alleged facts did not suggest that Perdigon had stated a valid claim. It therefore held that he had not shown the required likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions and denied his request for emergency relief.
Disposition and Next Step
The court denied both Perdigon’s request for reconsideration and his request for emergency relief. Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered him to notify the court in writing within 30 days whether he intended to continue the action after the denial of his request to proceed without paying fees. If he chose not to proceed, the court said it would direct the return of his filing fees and close the action. If he continued, he would be responsible for any necessary fees for serving defendants if the court issued summonses and ordered service. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.