Pietri v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Administration et al

Filing 38

ORDER: Although the Court specifically identified the allegations required to survive a motion to dismiss and gave Plaintiff additional time to amend his Complaint, Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. Nor did Plaintiff respond to the Court's 37 subsequent order to show cause. Indeed, the Court has not received any correspondence from Plaintiff since its 36 decision on 3/28/2013. Because of Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety. SO ORDERED by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 12/11/2013. C/mailed. (Forwarded for Judgment.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------ROBERT PIETRI,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
11-CV-3205 (MKB)

v.
N.Y.S. OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION,
JAMES IMPERATRICE and ANN PFAU,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Robert Pietri commenced the above-captioned action pro se on July 5, 2011. On
March 28, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Pietri v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Admin., No. 11-CV-3205, 2013 WL 1312002 (E.D.N.Y.
March 28, 2012). The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act against all Defendants, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against
the New York State Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) and Herbert Adlerberg, § 1983
claims against James Imperatrice (“Imperatrice”) and Ann Pfau (“Pfau”) in their official
capacities, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”)
claims against Imperatrice, Pfau and Adlerberg. See Pietri, 2013 WL 1312002, at *1. The Court
denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Imperatrice and Pfau in
their individual capacities and Title VII claims against OCA. Id. The Court gave Plaintiff the
opportunity to amend his Complaint within 30 days of the Court’s March 28, 2013 decision. Id.
at *17. Plaintiff failed to amend the complaint. On October 7, 2013, the Court directed Plaintiff

to show cause why this case should not be dismissed in its entirety for all the reasons set forth in
the Court’s March 28, 2013 decision. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order to show
cause.
In its Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to
dismiss, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to “sufficiently allege that Imperatrice and Pfau
personally violated his constitutional rights” and informed Plaintiff that “[i]n his Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff must specify the facts he alleges show that Imperatrice and Pfau acted to
deprive him of constitutional rights.” Pietri, 2013 WL 1312002, at *1. The Court found that
Plaintiff’s Title VII discrimination claim “relating to events that took place before May 23,
2009” were time-barred. Id. at *9. The Court allowed Plaintiff to “amend his Complaint to set
forth, in greater detail, how his mental health issues impaired his ability to timely file his Title
VII claim,” and to provide facts showing that “he was unaware of his cause of action because of
Defendant’s misleading conduct,” id., in order to support a claim for equitable tolling of the
statute of limitations. The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to state a valid Title VII
retaliation claim but allowed Plaintiff “to amend his Complaint to add any direct evidence of the
actions he alleges were motivated by retaliation.” Id. at *16. Finally, the Court found that
Plaintiff did not sufficiently plead a Title VII hostile work environment claim but granted him
leave to amend his Complaint to “assert a separate claim that Defendants created a hostile work
environment on account of his race or national origin.” Id.
Although the Court specifically identified the allegations required to survive a motion to
dismiss and gave Plaintiff additional time to amend his Complaint, Plaintiff failed to file an
amended complaint. Nor did Plaintiff respond to the Court’s subsequent order to show cause.
Indeed, the Court has not received any correspondence from Plaintiff since its decision on

March 28, 2013. Because of Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint, the Court dismisses
Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety.

SO ORDERED:

s/MKB
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge

Dated: December 11, 2013
Brooklyn, New York