Castro v. Covenant Aviation Security, LLC

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: denying 39 Motion for Sanctions; denying 41 Motion for Sanctions. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 5/7/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (sac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
JOSE CASTRO,
:
Plaintiff,

:

-against-

:

COVENANT AVIATION SECURITY, LLC,

:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
12 Civ. 3037 (PAC) (KNF)

Defendant.
:
--------------------------------------------------------------X
KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are the plaintiff’s motions to sanction the defendant. In his motion for
sanctions filed on November 8, 2012 (Docket Entry No. 39), the plaintiff seeks to sanction the
defendant “for attempting to mislead the court and I [would] like the defendant to pay for all my
legal expens[es] with Prepay Legal services and other cost of making copies, faxes, postage,
certified cost and time and stress and hardship.” According to the plaintiff, the defendant stated
in its reply that, “Although the air bill included the correct address for plaintiff’s building, it did
not include the apartment number,” but the defendant’s “proof of service” indicates the
plaintiff’s full address, including the apartment number. In his motion for sanctions filed on
December 4, 2012 (Docket Entry No. 41), the plaintiff contends that the defendant “continues to
attempt to mislead the court . . . by stating they [sic] never received a true original copy of the
complaint.” The plaintiff maintains that the defendant failed to comply with the Court’s order
“by serving the plaintiff on time” and he seeks “[his] legal expens[es] with Prepay Legal services
and other cost of making copies, faxes, postage, certified cost and time and stress and hardship.”
The Court finds that the defendant did not mislead the Court because in its letter, dated
1

October 25,2012, it explained that its reply was served on the plaintiff by FedEx, but the FedEx
air bill did not include the apartment number and that another copy of its reply was being sent to
the plaintiffs correct address. The defendant's inclusion of the plaintiffs apartment number on
its proof of service statement does not establish that the apartment number was included on the
FedEx air bill. The plaintiff failed to specify with what order the defendant failed to comply or
to show evidence that he was not served timely by the defendant with any papers. Furthermore,
the plaintiff did not show any evidence that his "true original complaint" was served on the
defendant. It appears that the plaintiff seeks to recover for the time he expended on, and the
expenses he incurred in, this litigation. However, a plaintiff proceeding pro se is not entitled to
attorney's fees. See Hawkins v. 1115 Legal Servo Care, 163 F.3d 684,694 (2d Cir. 1998).
Moreover, the plaintiff does not make citation to any authority that would allow him to recover
costs at this stage of litigation, and the Court finds none.
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs motions for sanctions, Docket Entry Nos. 39 and
41, are denied.
Dated: New York, New York
May 7,2013

SO ORDERED:
~

.

-~

IC~~

KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copy mailed to:
Jose Castro

2