Perez Perez v. Abrams

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Sanne KK DATE FILED:__ 8/5/2025 VICTOR MANUEL PEREZ PEREZ, : Plaintiff, : : 25-cv-4065 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER RONNIE ABRAMS, : Defendant. : LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Victor Manuel Perez Perez has filed suit against Judge Ronnie Abrams, a judge of this Court, seeking money damages from what he claims was “alleged bias and delay in producing an order that affects Plaintiff's civil rights” in a case before Judge Abrams. Dkt. No. 1 at 1.! Chief Judge Swain entered an order denying Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that Plaintiff had not alleged facts showing he had insufficient assets to pay the fees. Dkt. No. 4. After paying the filing fee in this Court, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 8, and the Court denied that motion for the same reasons provided by Chief Judge Swain, Dkt. No. 9.

Plaintiff then filed an interlocutory appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from Chief Judge Swain’s initial order. Dkt. No. 5. Plaintiff also filed a document in this Court entitled “Ex Parte Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,” in which he likewise seeks reconsideration of Chief Judge Swain’s order. Dkt. No. 10.

“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers ' The case is Perez Perez vy. New York State Department of Transportation, No. 25-cv-3178 (S.D.N.Y.). jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). The Second Circuit, moreover, has confirmed that “an interlocutory appeal may be taken from an order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W.

Sears Real Est., Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2d Cir. 1988) (per curiam); see also Cotton v. Noeth, 96 F.4th 249, 254 (2d Cir. 2024). This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's “Ex Parte Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,” as it raises the same issues now on appeal.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his mailing address provided to the Clerk of Court.

SO ORDERED. we Dated: August 5, 2025 sl MRED New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge