Accordingly, filing injunctions “must be narrowly tailored so as to preserve the litigant's right of access to the court.” Anghel v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., 15 Civ. 5914 (SJF), 2016 WL 183540, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2016); see also Bd. of Managers of2900 Ocean Ave. Condo. v. Bronkovic, 83 F.3d 44, 45 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (emphasizing that filing injunctions “must be appropriately narrow”); SBC 2010-1, LLC v. Morton, 552 Fed.Appx. 9, 12 (2d Cir. 2013)
. Although Plaintiff has failed to file a sworn affidavit as directed by the Court's December 28, 2018, Order to Show Cause, see Anghel v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., No. 15-CV-5914 (SJF) (SIL), 2016 WL 183540, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2016) (determining that the plaintiff's failure "to file an affidavit in accordance with" the court's order to show cause warranted dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)), in light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court considers Plaintiff's response to be adequate. Moreover, "the four factors used to determine whether to grant a discretionary extension, do not weigh in favor of granting an extension."
The Court, however, has the power to issue an order to show cause directing Plaintiff to explain why her action should not be dismissed pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.See, e.g., Saidin v. United Fed'n of Teachers, 522 F. Supp. 2d 638, 639 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Anghel v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., No. 15 Civ. 5914, 2016 WL 183540, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2016). A district court may raise these issues sua sponte because of "the strong public policy in economizing the use of judicial resources by avoiding relitigation."