Perri v. Bloomberg et al
ORDER denying 239 Motion to Vacate and 241 Motion to recover costs and fees. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 3/12/2012. Copy mailed to pro se plainitff. (Turner-Dodge, Lee)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
06-CV-403 (CBA) (LB)
-againstMICHAEL BLOOMBERG et al.,
AMON, Chief United States District Judge:
On May 27, 2011, this Court entered an order approving a settlement reached between
the City of New York and Ian Feldman, who is the court-appointed guardian ad litem for the
plaintiff Anthony Perri. The plaintiff objected to the terms of the settlement, but the Court
ultimately approved the settlement amount of twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500),
finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate.
On September 2, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting three things: (1) relief under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 from this Court’s May 27, 2011 order approving the
settlement and dismissing the action; (2) that the Court unseal the psychiatric report of Dr.
Merrill Rotter that was entered in this case on November 16, 2010 (Docket Entry #205); and (3)
that the Court “properly scan all evidence in this case to be accessible by ECF. Including: color
photographs, newspaper articles, & Government documents . . . .” (Docket Entry #239.) On
February 14, 2012, the plaintiff filed an additional motion seeking to recover the costs he
incurred throughout this litigation. The Court addresses both motions in this order.
First, the Court finds that the plaintiff has not presented any facts or arguments sufficient
to warrant relief from the Court’s May 27, 2011 order approving the proposed settlement. The
Court continues to believe that the settlement reached in this action is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for relief from this Court’s May 27, 2011 order is
Second, the plaintiff seeks to unseal the report of Dr. Merrill Rotter, filed on November
16, 2010, which summarizes the psychiatric evaluation of the plaintiff that was performed in
connection with his motion to have a guardian ad litem appointed by the Court. It is not clear
from the plaintiff’s motion why he wants to unseal this report. The purpose of filing the report
under seal is to protect the plaintiff by preventing the general public from accessing confidential
details about his personal and medical history. The Court is hesitant to unseal the report to make
it available to the public generally, and therefore the plaintiff’s motion is denied to the extent that
it seeks to make the report a public document. However, if the plaintiff wants a copy of the
report, he can request one from the Court and the Court will unseal the report for that limited
purpose and provide the plaintiff with a copy.
Third, the Court denies the plaintiff’s motion to have the Court “properly scan all
evidence in this case to be accessible by ECF.” Although the plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, does
not have access to ECF to file his own documents with the Court, all of the documents listed in
the plaintiff’s motion have either been filed and docketed on ECF or are maintained in the
Court’s hard copy records.
Finally, the plaintiff requests that the Court award him an additional fee to cover his
expenditures and his time spent on this case. The plaintiff states that he has spent over twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000) on photocopies, disposable cameras, picture development, research,
DVD’s, internet fees, transportation costs, and other materials needed to file over two hundred
documents in this case, which exceeds the amount of his settlement. The plaintiff argues that
Mr. Feldman, who agreed to the settlement amount over the plaintiff’s objections, did not
address the issue of costs. However, the settlement approved by the Court in this case expressly
includes all costs and expenses. The Stipulation of Settlement and Order of Dismissal so ordered
by the Court on May 27, 2011, states that this action “is dismissed with prejudice, and without
costs, expenses, or fees in excess of the amount specific in paragraph 2 [of the order].” (Docket
Entry No. 236.) Paragraph 2 of the stipulation states: “The City of New York hereby agrees to
pay plaintiff . . . the total sum of . . . $12, 500 . . . in full satisfaction of his claims against
defendants, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney fees.” Accordingly, the plaintiff’s
motion to recover any additional costs is denied.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order
would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of
an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 12, 2012
Carol Bagley Amon
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?