Peralta v. The City of New York

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Plaintiff, -against- 23 CIVIL 10785 (JMF) JUDGMENT CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants. none K It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 18, 2024, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety. More specifically: Plaintiffs claims against the City of New York, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(a)(1), are dismissed on res judicata grounds. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff's claims against Salcedo and Wynne under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 are dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff's claims against Salcedo and Wynne under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed as untimely. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1). The Court has declined to sua sponte grant Plaintiff leave to amend these claims on the grounds of futility. See Chepilko v. Cigna Life Ins. Co., 952 F. Supp. 2d 629, 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying leave to amend where “there is nothing in the plaintiffs filing that suggests that there is any basis to avoid dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that it is barred by the statute of limitations"). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962); accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York April 19, 2024 RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerkof Court BY: HK MANGO Deputy Clerk