Opinion
17-cr-337 (RJS)
07-19-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAHEEM J. BRENNERMAN, Defendant.
ORDER
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge:
The Court is in receipt of a pro se letter from Defendant Raheem J. Brennerman, dated June 20, 2022 (the “June 20 Letter”). (Docket No. 281.) The June 20 Letter makes two requests. First, Brennerman asks the Court to docket his pro se letter dated May 18, 2022 (the “May 18 Letter”). Second, Brennerman seeks leave to redact a non-party's address that he inadvertently left unredacted in a previous filing, currently found at Docket No. 280.
As to the first request, the Court declines to receive Brennerman's May 18 Letter for docketing because the letter fails to specify any relief sought or state the grounds on which any relief is based, as required under Rule 47 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It also contains unsubstantiated and inflammatory comments regarding counsel and judicial officers in this case and the parallel criminal contempt case before Judge Kaplan. See, e.g., Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 477 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W]e should not excuse frivolous or vexatious filings by pro se litigants[, and] pro se status does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); accord Theriault v. Silber, 579 F.2d 302, 303 (5th Cir. 1978) (“This court simply will not allow liberal pleading rules and pro se practice to be a vehicle for abusive documents.”); Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Cir. 2005); Carrigan v. California State Legislature, 263 F.2d 560, 564 (9th Cir. 1959). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Brennerman's request to docket his May 18 Letter is DENIED.
With respect to the request to file a redacted version of his prior filing, this request is granted, as the presumption of access to open records has been overcome by the privacy interests of a non-party. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006); Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Brennerman shall submit to the Clerk's Office a revised copy of Docket No. 280 with the non-party's address redacted; the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to file the redacted version and seal the unredacted version of Docket No. 280.
The Court notes that Brennerman also attempted to communicate with the Court via email on June 13, 2022 and on July 13, 2022, in violation of the Court's Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions. See S.D.N.Y. Elec. Case Filing R. & Instructions 1.1 (“Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, documents filed by pro se litigants must be filed in the traditional manner, on paper.”). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Brennerman shall conduct all future communications with the Court through the Clerk's Office.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Mr. Brennerman.
SO ORDERED.