GUSTAVE et al v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al

Filing 72

ORDER re 68 Letter. E. Gustaves requests are denied for the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, as well as the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Mann's Orders dated October 6, 2010 40 and December 6, 2010 53 , and this c ourt's Orders dated November 16, 2010 50 , December 10, 2010, and April 11, 2011. Plaintiffs are hereby notified that additional applications for the same relief will not be granted, and may subject them to sanctions. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on plaintiffs and to note the service on the docket. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 7/29/2011. (Winterkorn, Margaret)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------- X
EDWINA K. GUSTAVE
and MERANDE S. GUSTAVE,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

-against-

10-CV-3314 (KAM)(RLM)

CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
X
--------------------------------------MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
The court is in receipt of a letter, dated July 18,
2011, from pro se plaintiff Edwina Gustave (“E. Gustave”)
requesting the court to: (1) prohibit her state court-appointed
attorney, Michael Schwed, Esq., from representing her in a state
criminal proceeding currently pending in Queens County Supreme
Court (the “Criminal Proceeding”); (2) order the Honorable
Michael Aloise of Queens County Supreme Court to recuse himself
from the Criminal Proceeding; and (3) enjoin the Criminal
Proceeding.

(See ECF No. 68, Letter dated 7/18/2011 from pro se

Edwina K. Gustave to Judge Matsumoto.)

The court has also

received two letters in response, both dated July 28, 2011, from
defendants the City of New York, the Civilian Complaint Review
Board, and the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens
County.

(See ECF No. 70, Letter in Response to Plaintiff’s

Letter of July 18, 2011 by Criminal Court of the City of New

York; ECF No. 71, Letter in Response to Plaintiff’s July 18, 2011
Letter by City of New York, Civilian Complaint Review Board.)
By the court’s count, this is the tenth request by E.
Gustave and/or plaintiff Merande Gustave (together, “plaintiffs”)
for similar relief against the Criminal Proceeding or persons
associated or involved with that proceeding.

(See ECF No. 27,

Motion to Stay the Criminal Proceeding, dated 9/13/10 (requesting
a stay of the Criminal Proceeding); ECF No. 33, Letter dated
9/23/10 from pro se Edwina K. Gustave to Judge Matsumoto (same);
ECF No. 34, Letter dated 9/23/10 from pro se Edwina K. Gustave to
Judge Mann (same); ECF No. 49, Letter dated 10/28/10 from pro se
Edwina K. Gustave to Judge Matsumoto (same); ECF No. 54, Notice
of Omnibus Motion dated 11/29/2010 (same); ECF No. 55, Letter
dated 12/1/10 from pro se Edwina K. Gustave & Merande S. Gustave
(same); ECF No. 56, Letter Motion for Reconsideration, dated
12/7/10 (motion to reconsider, inter alia, refusal to enjoin of
Criminal Proceeding); ECF No. 62, Letter dated 2/23/2011 from
Merande Sondra Gustave to Judge Matsumoto (complaining about,
inter alia, appointment of counsel in Criminal Proceeding); ECF
No. 63, Letter Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, dated
3/27/11 (seeking restraining order prohibiting E. Gustave’s
appointed counsel, Michael Schwed, Esq., from contacting her);
ECF No. 64, Letter dated 4/7/11 from Edwina K. Gustave to Judge
Matsumoto (same).)
2

For the same reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Mann’s
Orders dated October 6, 2010 and December 6, 2010, and this
court’s Orders dated November 16, 2010, December 10, 2010, and
April 11, 2011, E. Gustave’s requests are denied.

(See ECF No.

40, Memorandum and Order, dated 10/6/10 (denying request to stay
Criminal Proceeding); ECF No. 53, Endorsed Order, dated 12/6/10
(denying application to stay Criminal Proceeding); ECF No. 52,
Memorandum and Order, dated 11/16/10 (affirming denial of request
to stay Criminal Proceeding); Order, dated 12/10/10 (overruling
objection to the denial of the motion to enjoin Criminal
Proceeding); Order, dated 4/11/11 (denying motion for restraining
order prohibiting appointment of counsel and appointed counsel
from contacting E. Gustave).)
Plaintiffs are hereby notified that additional
applications for the same relief will not be granted, and may
subject them to sanctions.

The Clerk of the Court is

respectfully requested to serve a copy of this Memorandum and
Order on plaintiffs and to note the service on the docket.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 29, 2011
Brooklyn, New York
_________
/s/
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York

3