24-1356-cv Peralta v. City of New York

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of November, two thousand twenty-four.

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, REENA RAGGI, MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

ROBINSON PERALTA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 24-1356-cv

CITY OF NEW YORK, HANSEL SALCEDO, DANIEL WYNNE,

Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Robinson Peralta, pro se, New York, NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance.

Appeal from an April 19, 2024 judgment of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York (Jesse M. Furman, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.

In 2021, pro se plaintiff Robinson Peralta sued N.Y.P.D. detectives Hansel Salcedo

and Daniel Wynne, as well as the City of New York, pursuant to

for

alleged violations of constitutional rights. Peralta alleged that the individual officers (and

unnamed others) harassed him after he was falsely accused of murder in 2010, and that

the City failed to investigate the claimed harassment. After the district court granted the

City’s motion to dismiss, Peralta’s claims against Salcedo and Wynne survived and

proceeded to discovery. See generally Peralta v. City of New York (“Peralta I”), No. 21-CV-

6395 (JMF),

(S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2022). On May 23, 2023, Peralta and the

officers executed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of voluntary dismissal which prompted

the district court to dismiss the matter without prejudice. When Peralta subsequently

appealed the voluntary dismissal, and challenged the district court’s prior dismissal of

his claims against the City, this Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Peralta v. 2 Salcedo, No. 23-839,

, at *1 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2023) (motion order) (citing

Chappelle v. Beacon Commc’ns Corp.,

, 653–54 (2d Cir. 1996)).

On December 11, 2023, Peralta, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a new

lawsuit against the same defendants, generally raising the same claims and allegations

asserted in Peralta I. The district court dismissed the case sua sponte under

(e)(2)(B) as precluded by Peralta I and, to the extent not precluded, as either time-

barred or improperly premised on statutes that do not provide a private cause of action.

See Peralta v. City of New York, 23-CV-10785 (JMF),

, at *4–8 (S.D.N.Y.

Apr. 18, 2024). The district court also denied leave to amend as futile. See

Peralta appealed. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining facts, the

procedural history, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to

explain our decision. Our review is de novo, see Hardaway v. Hartford Pub. Works Dep’t,

(2d Cir. 2018), and we construe pro se filings to raise the strongest arguments

they suggest, see Sharikov v. Philips Med. Sys. MR, Inc.,

, 166 (2d Cir. 2024).

Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that dismissal of the

complaint was warranted. 1 Peralta’s claims against the City are barred by claim

1 To the extent Peralta intends to challenge the district court’s decision to dismiss his complaint under

(e)(2)(B) without providing prior notice, see Snider v. Melindez,

(2d Cir. 1999), we discern no reversible error in the procedure employed by the district court. See Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp.,

, 363–64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (affirming sua sponte dismissal in the context of serial litigation). 3 preclusion because those claims ended on the merits in Peralta I, the same parties were

involved in the prior action, and the asserted claims either were or could have been raised

in the prior action. See TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2014)

(stating the elements of claim preclusion). Additionally, Peralta’s § 1983 claims against

the individual defendants, to the extent that they invoke laws under which there is any

private right of action, are barred by the three-year statute of limitations that governs

such claims in New York, and he failed to plead or argue extraordinary circumstances

sufficient to suggest the availability of equitable tolling. See Smalls v. Collins,

,

145–46 (2d Cir. 2021).

We have considered Peralta’s remaining arguments and conclude they are without

merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Peralta’s motion to

take judicial notice is GRANTED because we may take judicial notice of court records

filed in other courts. See Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 1991). In

addition, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to seal Peralta’s appendix (doc.

16) insofar as it includes his full date of birth. See Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(5).

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

4