From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jenkins v. Sladkus

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 17, 2005
04 CV 1595 (LAK)(MHD) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2005)

Opinion

04 CV 1595 (LAK)(MHD).

February 17, 2005


Dear Judge Kaplan:

It was recently brought to my attention that you had refused to docket a timely Rule 59 motion, thereby creating serious confusion in the record.

I world ask that you rescind your order not to docket my papers, and that you direct the clerk to accept them in the future.

The manner in which I affix my original signature to a document, particularly in the computer age, is my own decision to make. Unless and until you question whether I am filing the document you should respect my signature as such.

To avoid ay appearance of bias or impropriety on your part in creating a false impression in the docket that no Rule 59 motion was submitted, I further request that you direct the clerk to ensure that the record is corrected to reflect that such a timely motion was in fact submitted.

Please contact me if there is any further need. Otherwise, please direct that my papers similarly be accepted in the future. Your obstructing the filing of a motion that is time-sensitive seriously concerns me.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jenkins v. Sladkus

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 17, 2005
04 CV 1595 (LAK)(MHD) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2005)
Case details for

Jenkins v. Sladkus

Case Details

Full title:Re: Jenkins v. Sladkus

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Feb 17, 2005

Citations

04 CV 1595 (LAK)(MHD) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2005)