Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 17, 2024

Perez v. Evans

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:24-cv-00356
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Perez v. Evans, Magistrate Judge Netburn denied motions to recuse and for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

Who this affects

Eric Andrew Perez and the defendants, including Dr. Neil C. Evans; the court denied Perez’s recusal and emergency-relief motions.

What happened

In Perez v. Evans, Eric Andrew Perez asked the court to recuse the judge and sought an order requiring the defendants to preserve potential evidence, including records, files, footage, and study entries.

The court said Perez offered only general allegations and did not show personal bias. It also said Perez had not shown that emergency or preliminary injunctive relief was warranted, and it was unclear whether the defendants had notice of the lawsuit.

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn denied both motions and directed the clerk to terminate the recusal motion at docket entry 51.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Perez v. Evans · No. 1:24-cv-00356
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
May 17, 2024

Background

Eric Andrew Perez filed a motion asking the judge to recuse herself and a proposed order seeking a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. Perez asked the court to prevent the defendants from deleting or destroying potential evidence, including log files, login information, security footage, medical records, blood work, DNA files, and entries from an AstraZeneca AZD1222 study.

Recusal motion

The court explained that a party seeking recusal must show actual personal bias through specific facts, rather than general conclusions. The court found that Perez had made generalized allegations and had not provided evidence of personal bias. It therefore denied the motion to recuse.

Preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order

The court noted that once defendants know that evidence may be relevant to litigation, they have an obligation to preserve it. But the court found it unclear whether the defendants had notice of this action and found that Perez had not established that equitable relief was warranted. The court therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

Disposition

The court denied Perez’s motion for recusal and motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. It also requested that the clerk terminate the motion at docket entry 51.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.