Manko v. Finkelstein et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's 11/17/2011 and 1/9/2012 Orders, and of the denial of her application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds no factual or legal basis to reconsider its pre vious Orders. Plaintiff has failed to point to any error of law or facts in the record that the Court overlooked or any change in governing law that would alter the conclusions previously reached. Moreover, the Court does not find that reconsideratio n is warranted due to newly available evidence or to prevent manifest injustice. Accordingly, plaintiff's 7 motion is denied. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and the time for doing so has passed. Accordingly, the action shall not be file d and is dismissed without prejudice. The Court notes that plaintiff has recently filed several other cases in this court and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims similar to those in this case and against some of the same defendants. Plaintiff is respectfully requested to abstain from filing further duplicative or frivolous litigation in this Court. SO ORDERED by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto, on 2/7/2012. C/mailed. (Forwarded for Judgment) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

FILED

.
IN CLERK'S OFFICI!
U.S. DISTRICT COURT e.O.N.Y.

* FEB ~t20f2 *

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

________________________________

~x

BROOKLYN OFFICE

NELLA MANKO,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM

-against-

AND ORDER

11-CV-5054 (KAM) (LB)
MARC FINKELSTEIN, individually
and in his official capacity
as Justice of the Civil Court
(Housing Part) of Kings County;
SABRINA B. KRAUS, individually
and in her official capacity
as Justice of the Civil Court
(Housing Part) of Kings County;
KINGS COUNTY CIVIL COURT OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK (HOUSING PART) i
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, individually
and in her/his official capacity
as Administrative Justice of the Civil
Court (Housing Part) of Kings County,
Defendants.

----------------------------------x
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
On October 14, 2011, pro se plaintiff Nella Manko
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§

1983 alleging that

defendants violated her constitutional rights during the course
of two cases pending in Kings County Civil Court Housing Part,
Index Numbers 72359/2008 and 94458/2008.

By Order dated

November 17, 2011, plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma

pauperis was denied because plaintiff's financial statement did
not support a finding of indigency, and she was directed to pay
the filing fee within fourteen (14) days.
dated 11/17/2011 at 2, 4.)

(See ECF No.4, Order

The Order notified plaintiff that

even if she paid the filing fee, the action would be dismissed
on the bases set forth in the court's Order.

(Id.

at 2-4.)

On

December 1, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion, which the court
liberally construed as a motion for reconsideration of the
court's November 17, 2011 Order.
Motion, filed 12/1/2011.)

(See ECF No.5, Notice of

By Order dated January 9, 2012, the

court denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider the November 17,
2011 Order denying her motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
(ECF No.6, Order dated 1/9/2012 at 3).

The January 9, 2012

Order afforded plaintiff an additional ten (10) days from the
date of the Order to pay the filing fee of $350 to the Clerk of
the Court of the Eastern District of New York, and stated, "[i]f
plaintiff fails to submit the filing fee within the time
allowed, the action will not be filed."

(Id. )

On January 19, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion seeking
(1) an Order to "recall and vacate" the court's November 17,
2011 Order denying plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis; (2) an Order to "recall and vacate" the court's

January 9, 2012 Order denying plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration;

(3) leave to renew plaintiff's in forma

pauperis application; and (4) an order granting plaintiff's

request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

(ECF No.7,

Notice of Motion, filed 1/19/2012.)
To the extent that plaintiff seeks reconsideration of
the court's November 17, 2011 and January 9, 2012 Orders, and of

the denial of her application to proceed in forma pauperis, the
court finds no factual or legal basis to reconsider its previous
Orders.

Plaintiff has failed to point to any error of law or

facts in the record that the court overlooked or any change in
governing law that would alter the conclusions previously
reached.

Moreover, the court does not find that reconsideration

is warranted due to newly available evidence or to prevent
manifest injustice.

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is denied.

Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and the time for
doing so has passed.

Accordingly, the action shall not be filed

and is dismissed without prejudice.

The court notes that

plaintiff has recently filed several other cases in this court
and in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting claims similar to those in this
case and against some of the same defendants.
v. Abdus-Salaam, No. 11 Civ. 7725 (LAP)

See, e.g., Manko

(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28,

2011); Manko v. Steinhardt, No. 11 Civ. 5430 (KAM) (LB)

(E.D.N.Y.

Nov. 28, 2011); Manko v. Steinhardt, No. 11 Civ. 5103 (KAM) (LB)
(E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2011).

Plaintiff is respectfully requested to

abstain from filing further duplicative or frivolous litigation
in this court.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to serve
a copy of this Memorandum and Order on plaintiff and note
service on the docket by February 8, 2012, dismiss this action,
and close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

February 7, 2012
Brooklyn, New York

-... ""
/S/

... ~.

...-

-

\
~

Kiyo A. Matsumoto

United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York