Burton v. White Glove Placement, Inc. et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, For the reasons stated above, this Court cannot take action with respect to any of the issues raised in the letter pltff filed on 12/28/11, or in pltff's letters dated 1/6 and 9, 2012. To the extent that pltff is asserting that there are documents which were submitted to, or issued by, this Court which were not docketed, pltff should submit copies of these documents to the Clerk's Office and request that they be filed. To the extent that pltff is objecting to deft s' failure to respond to pltff's discovery requests, pltff should address these discovery disputes to Magistrate Judge Bloom in accordance with her Individual Practices. Pltff is reminded that she is responsible for keeping up-to-date with all of her cases. If pltff has not timely received copies of motion papers that were allegedly served upon her, she may request that the papers be re-served and/or that her time to respond to specific motions be extended. (Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 1/23/12) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)

FILED

(

IN CLERK'S OFFIO.r

UNITIJD STATES DISTRJCT COURT

~

:DJ~~;~C;L;;~,~~~

EASTERN DISTRJCT OF NEW YO~

---------------------------------------------------BQQJS!.Y~ 0 F F1 E
C

u

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANN BURTON,

Plaintiff,
-against-

10-CV-5318 (SLT) (LB)

ERJC K. SHINSEKI, eta/.

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------){
ANN BURTON,
Plaintiff,

-against-

11-CV-1416 (SLT) (LB)

AMERJCAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES (AFGE) 1988, eta/.,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X
ANN BURTON,

Plaintiff,
11-CV-1417 (SLT) (LB)

-againstSILVERCREST CENTER FOR NURSING
AND REHABILITATION, eta/.,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X
ANN BURTON,

Plaintiff,
11-CV-1649 (SLT) (LB)

-againstWHITE GLOVE PLACEMENT INC., eta/.,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X
ANN BURTON,

Plaintiff,
-against11-CV -2030 (SLT) (LB)

ERJC K. SHINSEKI, eta/.,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X

-----------------------------------------------------------------X
ANN BURTON,

Plaintiff,
-against-

11-CV-2757 (SLT) (LB)

SILVERCREST CENTER FOR NURSING
AND REHABILITATION, eta/.,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X
ANN BURTON,

Plaintiff,
-against11-CV-4071 (SLT) (LB)
NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, eta/.,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X

ANN BURTON,

Plaintiff,
-against-

11-CV-4072 (SLT) (LB)

WHITE GLOVE PLACEMENT, INC., eta/.,

Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X
ANN BURTON,

Plaintiff,
11-CV-4074 (SLT) (LB)

-againstUNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, eta/.,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X
ANN BURTON,

Plaintiff,
11-CV-4218 (SLT) (LB)

-againstTHE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE, eta/.,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x
2

-----------------------------------------------------------------x
ANN BURTON,
Plaintiff,
-against11-CV-5606 (SLT) (LB)
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, eta!.,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x

TOWNES, United States District Judge:

This Court is in receipt of three letters from plaintiff Arm Burton. The first (hereafter, the
"First Letter") is an undated, two-page letter filed December 28,2011, addressed to "Judge
Bloomffownes," which purports to relate to all of the above-captioned actions except Burton v.
Civil Court, No. 11-CV -5606. 1 The second, dated January 6, 2012 (the "Second Letter"), is a

five-page letter headed, "Attn: Hon. Bloomffownes/Amon," which purports to relate to "all" of
plaintiffs cases but which specifically lists only seven of the above captioned cases~ not Burton
v. White Glove Placement, No. 11-CV-1649 (SLT)(LB); Burton v. New York Police Department,
No. 11-CV-4071 (SLT)(LB); Burton v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Comm 'n,
No. 11-CV-4074 (SLT)(LB); or Burton v. State Education Dep 't, No. 11-CV-4218 (SLT)(LB).
The third, dated January 9, 2012 (the "Third Letter"), is a two-page letter headed, "Attn: Hon.
Bloom/Townes/Amon," which addresses issues relating to only two of the above-captioned
cases: Burton v. Shinseki, No. 10-CV-5318 (SLT)(LB), and Burton v. Silvercrest Center for

Five of these 11 actions~ Burton v. White Glove Placement, Inc., No. 11-CV-1649
(SLT)(LB); Burton v. Shinseki, No. 11-CV -2030 (SLT)(LB); Burton v. New York Police
Department, No. 11-CV-4071 (SLT)(LB); Burton v. United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Comm 'n, No. 11-CV -4074 (SLT)(LB); and Burton v. State Education Dep 't, No.
11-CV -4218 (SLT)(LB)- had already been dismissed by the time plaintiff filed the first of these
letters. However, since one or more of plaintiff's letters has been docketed in each of the closed
cases, this Court directs that this Memorandum and Order be filed in those cases.
1

3

Nursing & Rehabilitation, No. 11-CV-2757 (SLT)(LB). This Memorandum and Order is in
response to these letters.

The First Letter
The First Letter alleges, among other things, that unspecified "fraudulent counterfeit
documents" have been filed in "the cases of Ann Burton," that documents plaintiff has submitted
to the Court have been "tampered, counterfeit, omitted and/or discarded," and that plaintiff has
not received any correspondence from the Court since an order relating "to the October 31, 20 II,
fraudulent depo." First Letter at 1. In addition, the First Letter contains cryptic references to,
among other things, portions of this Court's prior orders; "numerous objections, answers and
confidential agree [sic] which evoked no response by the Court or [defendants];" and unspecified
defects in the service of process in Burton v. Shinseki, No. 11-CV-5318 (SLT)(LB). First Letter

at 2.
These allegations are not specific enough to permit this Court to take any action. Plaintiff
does not specify which of the many documents filed in plaintiff's many cases are fraudulent or
counterfeit, and this Court has no way of knowing what documents, allegedly submitted to the
Court by plaintiff, have not been docketed. Furthermore, with the two exceptions discussed in
the next paragraph, this Court carmot decipher the cryptic references or determine what, if any,
action plaintiff is asking the Court to take. For example, plaintiff does not identify the
"objections, answers and confidential agree [sic]" to which she refers, or what action she wants
the Court to take with respect to the service of process in Burton v. Shinseki, No. 11-CV -5318.
Although this Court carmot decipher most of the cryptic references, this Court suspects
that paragraph 4 on page 2 is an attempt to reiterate plaintiff's objection to a portion of this
4

Court's November 4, 2011, Memorandwn and Order in Burton v. Silvercrest Center, No. 11-CV2030. However, this Court has already addressed that objection, see Burton v. Silvercrest Center,
No. 11-CV-2030, slip op. at 2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2011), and plaintiff has appealed that decision
to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, this Court suspects that paragraph 6 on page
2 is an attempt to object to a deposition transcript submitted in connection with the defendants'
motion to dismiss Burton v. Silvercrest Center, No. 11-CV -1417. If so, plaintiff should have
included that objection in her response to defendants' motion.
Finally, this Court is perplexed by plaintiff's allegations that she has received no
correspondence from this Court over the last two months. Not only has chambers been careful to
mail copies of all of its orders to plaintiff at the addresses she has provided, but the Clerk's
Office has mailed additional copies to plaintiff, as indicated by the "elm" or "C/Mailed"
notations on the docket sheet. None of these mailings has been returned. 2

The Second Letter
The Second Letter also alleges that plaintiff has not received "any correspondence from
the Court since the 10/31111 Deposition" and repeats some of the other allegations in the First
Letter. See Second Letter at 1-3
cryptic references. See id.

(~~

4 (I), (16), and (18)). However, it includes a longer list of

(mf 4 (1) through (29)).

Again, this Court cannot take any action

because this Court cannot decipher these references or determine what, if any, action plaintiff is
asking the Court to take.

2

This Court notes, however, that during most of the month of December 2011, this Court
mailed its orders- per plaintiffs directions- to ''c/o U.S.P.S., 88AO 1641h Street, Jamaica, New
York 11432." This Court is uncertain whether the mail would have been held for plaintiff absent
any reference to "General Delivery."

5

To the extent that plaintiff is objecting to Magistrate Judge Bloom's order dated
December 21,2011 (see id, ~ 4 (28)), this Court notes that this order only cautioned plaintiff that
mistreatment of Court employees will not be tolerated. 3 While that order warned plaintiff that
her contact with the Court might be limited unless she treated court employees with courtesy and
respect, no such limits have been imposed. Unless and until Judge Bloom takes action, there is
no need to act on this objection.
With respect to~ 4 (25)- in which plaintiff states that she "cannot respond to Orders,
Memos or any correspondence which is ... docketed untimely or not received"- this Court
advises plaintiff that she is responsible for keeping up-to-date with all of her cases. Plaintiff may
review the docket sheets for these cases in the Clerk's Office. Plaintiff is further advised that
Section liLA of this Court's Individual Motion Practices & Rules (available at http://www.nyed.
uscourts.gov/pub/rules/SLT-MLR.pdt), requires that represented parties not file their motion
papers until the motions are fully briefed. If plaintiff has not timely received copies of motion
papers that were allegedly served upon her, she may request that the papers be re-served and/or
that her time to respond to a specific motion be extended.

The Third Letter
The Third Letter relates to only two cases: Burton v. Silvercrest Center for Nursing &

Rehabilitation, No. 11-CV-2757, and Burton v. Shinseki, No. 10-CV-5318. With respect to the
former, plaintiff objects to that portion of this Court's November 10, 2011, Memorandum and

3

In this connection, this Court acknowledges receipt of a letter dated January 9, 2012, in
which plaintiff complains about her treatment by staff in the Clerk's Office. This Court expects
all court employees to treat litigants with courtesy and respect, but does not supervise the Clerk's
Office. Plaintiff may wish to send a copy of her letter to the Clerk of Court.
6

Order which dismissed plaintiff's claims against defendant Marie Mitchell and Darlene
Weitzman, and states that plaintiff's "response" to the Memorandum and Order was not
docketed. Third Letter at ,,3-4. With respect to the latter case, plaintiff alleges that her "request
to change E.S. to DVA," and "the Court's Order regarding this matter" were not docketed, 4 and
that a two-page document submitted by Carmen Cox to William Kosel and the EEOC is "missing
from the exhibits." Third Letter at ,1, 5.
To the extent that plaintiff is asserting that there are documents which were submitted to,
or issued by, this Court which were not docketed, plaintiff should submit copies of these
documents to the Clerk's Office and request that they be filed. To the extent that plaintiff is
objecting to defendants' failure to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests, plaintiff should
address these discovery disputes to Magistrate Judge Bloom in accordance with her Individual
Practices (available at http://www.nyed.uscourts. gov/pub/rules!LB-MLR.pdf).
With respect to plaintiff's objection to the dismissal of defendants Mitchell and
Weitzman in Burton v. Silvercresf Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation, No. 11-CV -2757
(SLT)(LB), this Court notes that the dismissal had nothing to do with whether or not these
individuals were federal employees. In this Court's Memorandum and Order dated November
10, 2011, this Court found that the only basis for federal jurisdiction alleged in the complaint in
that action was Title VII. See Burton v. Silvercrest Center, No. 11-CV-2757, slip op. at 6
(E.D.N. Y. Nov. 10, 2011 ). However, this Court noted that Title VII retaliation claims could not
be brought against individuals. See id.
4

This Court notes that in a letter dated June 13,2011, plaintiff requested that her claims
be "captioned with the DVA, Shinseki and/or whomever is the appropriate government entity."
Letter to Hon. Lois Bloom from Ann Burton, dated June 13,2011 (Document# 30 in Burton v.
Shinseki, No. 10-CV -5318), at 2. Since this case was already appropriately captioned, Judge
Bloom did not take any action on this request.
7

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, this Court cannot take action with respect to any of the
issues raised in the letter plaintiff filed on December 28,2011, or in plaintiff's letters dated
January 6 and 9, 2012. To the extent that plaintiff is asserting that there are documents which
were submitted to, or issued by, this Court which were not docketed, plaintiff should submit
copies of these documents to the Clerk's Office and request that they be filed. To the extent that
plaintiff is objecting to defendants' failure to respond to plaintiffs discovery requests, plaintiff
should address these discovery disputes to Magistrate Judge Bloom in accordance with her
Individual Practices.
Plaintiff is reminded that she is responsible for keeping up-to-date with all of her cases.
If plaintiff has not timely received copies of motion papers that were allegedly served upon her,
she may request that the papers be re-served and/or that her time to respond to specific motions
be extended.

-----

SO ORDERED.

<=.

fSANDRAL. TOWNES
United States District Judge

Ol3 ,

Dated: January
2012
Brooklyn, New York

8

---------

-