Zinnamon v. United States Postal Service

Filing 8

ORDER: Liberally construing the 7 Amended Complaint as a request for reconsideration of the Court's 5 Order dismissing this action, the Court denies this 7 request. Plaintiff is again cautioned against filing file non-meritorious or frivolous employment discrimination complaints and other types of complaints. If plaintiff continues to do so, the Court will consider sanctions, including the imposition of a filing injunction. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915( a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. SO ORDERED. (Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross, on 2/22/2011) C/mailed by Chambers. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------)(
BARBARA ZINNAMON, Plaintiff, -againstUNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.

NOT FOR PRINT OR ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION ORDER 10-CV-4795 (ARR)

-------------------------------------------------------------)(
ROSS, United States District Judge: By order dated November 30, 2010 ("November Order"), the court dismissed plaintiffs complaint against defendant for failure to state a claim, but granted plaintiffleave to file an amended complaint within 30 days to support her employment discrimination claims pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against defendant. Moreover, the court warned plaintiff against filing a non-meritorious or frivolous discrimination claim based on her litigation history in this court. On January 28, 2011, after waiting nearly 60 days, the court dismissed the complaint as plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. Judgment was entered on February 1,2011. On February 3,2011, plaintifffiled a one-page amended complaint, dated January 31, 2011. Plaintiff argues that the court's failure to send her an amended complaint form is the reason for her delay. The court does not have an amended complaint form, but does provide a face or cover page titled "Amended Complaint" along with amended complaint instructions. The court does not credit this argument as the basis for plaintiff s failure to file a timely amended complaint, and, in any event, plaintiffs untimely amended complaint fails to comply with the court's November Order and fails to state a claim for employment discrimination against defendant.

Conclusion
Liberally construing the amended complaint as a request for reconsideration of the court's order dismissing this action, the court denies this request. Plaintiff is again cautioned against filing file non-meritorious or frivolous employment discrimination complaints and other types of complaints. If plaintiff continues to do so, the court will consider sanctions, including the imposition of a filing injunction. See Zinnamon v. Cingular Wireless, No. 09-CV-5699 (ARR), slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2010) (dismissing complaint and warning plaintiff that the court may issue a filing injunction); Zinnamon v Motorola, No. 09-CV3824 (ARR), slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2009) (dismissing plaintiffs complaint and warning plaintiff that the court may issue a filing injunction); Zinnamon v. Outstanding Bus Co., No. 08-CV1787 (ARR), slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2009) (adopting Report and Recommendation which included a warning that any future filing would subject plaintiff to a filing injunction). The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED.

/Signed by Judge Ross/
Allyne R. United Dated: February 22, 2011 Brooklyn, New York

fo~ St~s:::udge

2

SERVICE LIST:

Pro Se Plaintiff Barbara Zinnamon 345 Livonia Avenue Apt. 4F Brooklyn, NY 11212

3