Opinion
23-CV-10887 (JMF)
03-29-2024
DARRYL C. CARTER, Plaintiff, v. MOLLY WASOW PARK, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
JESSE M. FURMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On March 26, 2024, the Court entered an Order vacating its prior endorsement granting Plaintiff permission for electronic case filing. See ECF No. 17. Noting that Plaintiff had emailed a submission directly to Chambers and that the submission contained “inappropriate and inflammatory language,” the Order also reminded Plaintiff that, as a pro se litigant, he is not permitted to directly contact Chambers and that all communications with the Court must be made through the Pro Se Office in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases. The Order explicitly warned that “[f]ailure to comply with this Order and those restrictions, and future filings of an inappropriate or inflammatory nature, may result in sanctions, including dismissal of this case.” Id. at 2.
Later the same day, Plaintiff sent another email to Chambers with a “filing” attached. The Court entered an Order noting that it presumed Plaintiff had not yet seen its earlier Order and, thus, would “not take any steps except to reiterate its warning that failure to comply with the restrictions on direct contact with Chambers may result in sanctions.” ECF No. 18.
The very next day, in blatant violation of the Court's Orders and disregard of its warnings, Plaintiff sent another email with an attached “filing” directly to Chambers (allegedly copying Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and the Department of Justice). The email and attachment, copies of which are attached as Exhibit A, contain even more offensive and inflammatory language, including racist epithets and direct attacks against this tribunal. In the email, Plaintiff also states: “since I do not have a right of access to the courts, I am addressing this matter via email. And you dirty whites can close this case too.”
The Court construes this statement to mean that Plaintiff wishes to voluntarily dismiss this matter pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If that is not the case, and Plaintiff wishes to continue prosecuting this case, he shall file a letter to that effect no later than April 11, 2024. In any such letter, Plaintiff shall also show cause why this case should not be dismissed as a sanction for his failure to comply with the Court's prior Orders and for his continued use of inappropriate, offensive, and vulgar language in Court submissions. See, e.g., Leibovitz v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-546 (LGS) (HBP), 2019 WL 4307305, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2019) (dismissing where the plaintiff persisted, despite prior warnings, “in using inappropriate, crude or profane language in his communications”), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 4303343 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2019); Cameron v. Lambert, No. 07-CV-9258 (DC), 2008 WL 4823596, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2008) (“Pursuant to its inherent power, a court may impose sanctions against a party for acting in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons and for misconduct during the course of litigation.” (cleaned up)). Failure to show cause by the deadline will result in dismissal without further notice.
Plaintiff is reminded - for at least the third time - that he may not contact Chambers directly in any way, including but not limited to telephone, email, or regular mail. Instead, all communications with the Court must be made through the Pro Se Office in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases. Failure to comply with this Order and those restrictions may result in sanctions, including dismissal of this case.
Furthermore, lest there be any doubt: Plaintiff shall not use inappropriate, vulgar, crude, profane, or offensive language in his filings or in any other communications with the Court or Court personnel. Continued use of such language will result in dismissal and may also result in a filing injunction prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any lawsuit in this Court without prior leave of the Court. See, e.g., Lead Creation Inc. v. Hangzhou Yueji E-Com. Co., No. 22-CV-10377 (JMF), 2023 WL 7413835, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2023) (“It is well established that the Court has inherent authority to impose sanctions to deter abuse of the judicial process, which may include limiting a litigant's access to the judicial system.” (cleaned up)); Shukla v. Apple Inc., No. 21-CV-3287 (JMF), 2021 WL 5281371, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2021) (“It is well established that a district court may, in its discretion, impose sanctions, including a litigation bar, against litigants who abuse the judicial process, by filing vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits, causing needless expense to other parties or posing an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel.” (cleaned up)).
This Court certifies, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.