Perdigon v. United States

Background

Andrew Perdigon filed the action without a lawyer against the United States, federal and New York officials and agencies, unknown NYPD officers, unknown sheriff’s deputies, Apple, several companies, medical providers, family members, former friends, and other individuals. The opinion states that Perdigon alleged the defendants were involved in a criminal enterprise focused on his claimed telepathic abilities and related biological data. He asserted claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and various federal criminal statutes.

Perdigon also alleged that NYPD officers entered his home without a warrant on three occasions. He alleged that three deputies from the Office of the Sheriff of the City of New York took him into custody and falsely imprisoned him in a hospital for five days. He sought monetary damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it could dismiss a complaint as frivolous, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or for failure to state a claim. It also explained that a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations must be read liberally, but the complaint still must provide enough factual material to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

The court found that Perdigon’s allegations concerning a criminal enterprise, conspiracy, and racketeering were largely conclusory. In the court’s view, he provided no facts supporting his assertion that the defendants had joined a criminal enterprise or engaged in racketeering and organized crime related to his claimed telepathy. The court therefore dismissed those claims against all named defendants as frivolous because they lacked a basis in law or fact.

The court interpreted Perdigon’s allegations about the NYPD officers and sheriff’s deputies as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute allows a claim for violation of federal rights by a person acting under state authority. The court stated that Perdigon had not alleged enough facts to support those claims, but determined that they could potentially be viable if supported by additional facts.

Disposition

The court dismissed Perdigon’s criminal-enterprise, conspiracy, and racketeering claims against all named defendants as frivolous. It denied his requests for injunctive and declaratory relief as moot. The court granted him 60 days’ leave to file a second amended complaint solely concerning the alleged three warrantless entries into his home by NYPD officers and the alleged taking and false imprisonment by three sheriff’s deputies. The second amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the earlier pleadings, and it may not repeat claims dismissed by the order.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to hold the matter open until a civil judgment is entered. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.