George v. Kings County Hospital Center

Filing 12

FILING INJUNCTION ORDER; To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Order, reconsideration is DENIED. The Court now enters a Filing Injunction ENJOINING Plaintiff from filing any new action in this Court against Defendant relating to the te rmination of his employment without first seeking leave of Court. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff, without filing, any new action relating to the termination of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant if it is received without a separate application seeking leave to file. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, should Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, such status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 2/7/2017. C/M (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
SUNIL P. GEORGE,
Plaintiff,
-against-

FILING INJUNCTION ORDER
16-CV-4482(JS)(GRB)

KINGS COUNTY HOSPITAL CENTER,

Defendant.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff:
Sunil P. George, pro se
56 Kensington Court
Hempstead, NY 11550
For Defendant:

No appearance.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
By Memorandum and Order dated November 29, 2016 (the
“Order”), the Court granted the application of pro se plaintiff
Sunil

P.

George

(“Plaintiff”)

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis,

dismissed the Complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(e)(2)(B)(ii),

and

denied

Plaintiff’s

appointment of pro bono counsel.
Because

Plaintiff

against

his

had

former

application

for

the

(See, Order, Docket Entry 7.)

already

filed

employer,

Kings

two

civil

actions1

Hospital

Center,

prior

County

(“Defendant”) relating to the same subject matter--the alleged
unlawful termination of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), as
codified

1

in

42

U.S.C.

§§

12112-12117--and

each

having

been

See George v. Kings Cty. Hosp. Ctr., 11-CV-5543, closed on
Jan. 7, 2013 and George v. Kings Cty. Hosp. Ctr., 11-CV-5604,
closed on February 6, 2015.

dismissed, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause, in writing,
within thirty (30) days, why he should not be enjoined from filing
any new action relating to this subject matter without first
obtaining leave of Court.

(Order at 11-12.)

On December 22, 2016, Plaintiff timely filed a nineteen
(19) page, unsigned, and unsworn submission entitled “Affidavit”
(See, Aff., Docket Entry 8.)

Although provided an opportunity to

be heard, nothing in Plaintiff’s response, even when liberally
construed, addresses why he should not be barred from filing any
new action against Defendant relating to the termination of his
employment without first obtaining permission to file, and, instead
appears to seek reconsideration of the dismissal of his Complaint.
I.

Reconsideration
Insofar

as

Plaintiff

requests

that

this

Court

“reinstat[e] [his] employment lost services from March 31, 2008 to
present . . .” (Aff. at 2), such request is liberally construed to
seek

reconsideration

of

the

Order.

Plaintiff’s

reconsideration of the Order is DENIED.
matters

or

controlling

decisions

that

request

for

Plaintiff points to no
the

Court

allegedly

overlooked nor does he provide any other proper basis for this
Court to grant reconsideration. “The standard for granting [a
motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will
generally

be

denied

unless

the

moving

party

can

point

to

controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked--matters,
in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the
2

conclusion reached by the Court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70
F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

Indeed, the

Second Circuit instructs that Rule 60(b) is “extraordinary judicial
relief” and can be granted “only upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances.”

Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986)

(citations omitted); accord United States v. Bank of N.Y., 14 F.3d
756, 759 (2d Cir. 1994).

In addition, Local Civil Rule 6.3

provides that a party moving for reconsideration must “set[] forth
concisely the matters or controlling decisions which [the party]
believes the court has overlooked.”

See LOCAL CIV. R. 6.3.

Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s submission falls far short of
establishing a proper basis for relief from the Order, to the
extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Order, such request
is DENIED.
II.

See FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), 60(b) and LOCAL CIV. R. 6.3.

Litigation Bar
For the reasons set forth above and in the Order, it is

now ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff is ENJOINED from filing any new
action in this Court relating to termination of his employment with
Defendant without first seeking leave of Court; (2) the Clerk of
the Court is DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff, without filing, any
new action relating to the termination of his employment with
Defendant if it is received without a separate application seeking
leave to file; (3) if Plaintiff seeks leave to file a new complaint
and the Court finds that the new action is not subject to this
filing injunction, the Court shall grant Plaintiff leave to file
3

the new action and it shall be assigned a civil docket number; and
(4) if leave to file is denied, Plaintiff’s submission shall be
filed on the Court’s miscellaneous docket and a summary order
denying leave to file shall be entered and no further action shall
be taken.
Plaintiff is WARNED that the continued submission of
frivolous civil actions may result in the imposition of additional
sanctions,

including

monetary

opportunity to be heard.

penalties,

upon

notice

and

an

28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Malley v. Corp.

Counsel of the City of N.Y., 9 F. App’x 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2001)
(summary order) (affirming imposition of $1,500 sanction on pro se
litigant for filing repetitive, frivolous complaints).
Although nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit
Plaintiff from filing an appeal of this Filing Injunction Order,
the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, should
Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, such status is
DENIED for the purpose of any appeal.

See Coppedge v. United

States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
CONCLUSION
To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the
Order, reconsideration is DENIED.

The Court now enters a Filing

Injunction ENJOINING Plaintiff from filing any new action in this
Court

against

Defendant

relating

to

the

termination

employment without first seeking leave of Court.
4

of

his

The Clerk of the

Court is DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff, without filing, any new
action relating to the termination of Plaintiff’s employment with
Defendant if it is received without a separate application seeking
leave to file.

If Plaintiff seeks leave to file a new complaint

and the Court finds that the new action is not subject to this
filing injunction, the Court shall grant Plaintiff leave to file
the new action and it shall be assigned a civil docket number.

If

leave to file is denied, Plaintiff’s submission shall be filed on
the Court’s miscellaneous docket and a summary order denying leave
to file shall be entered and no further action shall be taken.
Plaintiff is WARNED that the continued submission of
frivolous and repetitive civil actions may result in the imposition
of additional sanctions, including monetary penalties, upon notice
and an opportunity to be heard. The Court certifies pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be
taken in good faith and, should Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in
forma pauperis, such status is DENIED for the purpose of any
appeal.

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82

S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

February
7 , 2017
Central Islip, New York
5