Schuster v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Filing 101

ORDER denying and denying as moot 98 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document; denying as moot 99 Motion re: 98 MOTION for Leave to File., 99 MOTION CLARIFICATION OF JUDGE RICHARD J. SULLIVAN'S 4/7/23 ORDER re: 96 Orde r. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Schuster's requests forthe Court's permission to file complaints with the Department of Justice and the Departmentof Labor are DENIED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Schuster's request for permi ssion to make sucha request is DENIED AS MOOT. Accordingly, the Court declines toengage with Schuster's requests for further explanation of the Filing Injunction or his invitationsto provide advisory opinions on matters that are plainly outside the scope of the Filing Injunction.IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Schuster's requests for clarification of the Court's FilingInjunction are DENIED AS MOOT. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Schuster's request to lift the Filing I njunction (Doc. No. 100 at 5) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to send a copy of this Order to Schuster via email at the updated email address listed on the electronic case docket and via mail at the address listed on his most recent Notice of Change of Address (2266 Fifth Ave., P.O. Box 790, New York, NY 10037). (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 6/26/2023) Sitting by Designation. (ate)

Case 1:18-cv-01826-RJS Document 101 Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AKOBI SCHUSTER,
Plaintiff,
-v-

No. 18-cv-1826 (RJS)
ORDER

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Defendant.

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge:
On April 8, 2021, the Court imposed a filing injunction (the “Filing Injunction”) barring
Plaintiff Akobi Schuster “from filing in any tribunal any action, motion, petition, complaint, or
request for relief that relates to or arises from (i) the cable box incident alleged in Schuster’s
complaint, as well as Charter’s alleged response to that incident or Schuster’s [Occupational Safety
and Health Administration] claims; or (ii) any of Charter’s conduct in defending against his
previous actions – against any person or entity that encountered Schuster throughout this federal
litigation – without first obtaining leave from this Court.” (Doc. No. 50 at 24.)
The Court is now in receipt of Schuster’s April 2023 requests for (1) permission to file
with the U.S. Department of Justice a complaint against Kenneth Margolis, counsel to Charter, for
alleged “coverup[s],” “retaliation,” and “fraud” relating to the cable box incident and Schuster’s
termination (Doc. No. 97 at 1, 22 ¶ 90); (2) permission to file with the Department of Labor Wages
and Hours Division a complaint related to his FMLA medical leave and termination (see Doc.
No. 98 at 1); (3) permission to seek certain documents from Charter, Charter Director of Human
Resources Jonathan Diamond, or their attorneys (see Doc. No. 98 at 1, 9 ¶¶ 54–56);
(4) clarification as to whether a “request is not a filing” (Doc. No. 99 at 21 ¶ 140); (5) clarification

Case 1:18-cv-01826-RJS Document 101 Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 4

as to whether Schuster must “answer to [the] judge” (Doc. No. 99 at 21 ¶¶ 142–44); and
(6) clarification as to whether “it is legal for [the] Judge to[] perform judicial misconduct” (Doc.
No. 99 at 21 ¶ 141). Also before the Court is Schuster’s request that the Filing Injunction be lifted.
(See Doc. No. 100 at 5.)
With regard to Schuster’s first two requests (Doc. No. 97 at 1, 22 ¶ 90, and Doc. No. 98
at 1), the Court finds that each would necessarily involve the “filing,” before a tribunal, of an
“action, motion, petition, complaint, or request for relief” that relates to and arises from the cable
box incident, Charter’s alleged response, Schuster’s OSHA claims, or Charter’s conduct in
defending against Schuster’s previous actions. (Doc. No. 50 at 24.) They therefore fall under the
scope of the Filing Injunction. Because Schuster has offered no arguments or reasons to justify
relief from the Court’s injunction, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Schuster’s requests for
the Court’s permission to file complaints with the Department of Justice and the Department
of Labor are DENIED.
Schuster’s third request (Doc. No. 98 at 1, 9 ¶¶ 54–56) – seeking the production of various
documents from Charter, Charter Director of Human Resources Jonathan Diamond, and/or their
attorneys – falls outside the Filing Injunction because it does not entail the “filing . . .[of] an[]
action, motion, petition, complaint, or request for relief” in a “tribunal.” (Doc. No. 50 at 24.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Schuster’s request for permission to make such
a request is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court nonetheless clarifies that it in no way endorses
Schuster’s proposed requests for documents and information, and that it will not intervene or
otherwise compel the production of such documents and information should Charter, Diamond,
and/or their attorneys refuse to comply with Schuster’s requests. The Court further clarifies that,
if Schuster intends to “fil[e]” before the Department of Labor or any tribunal “an[] action, motion,

2

Case 1:18-cv-01826-RJS Document 101 Filed 06/26/23 Page 3 of 4

petition, complaint, or request for relief” – including a motion to compel the production of
documents – that relates to or arises from the cable box incident, Charter’s alleged response,
Schuster’s OSHA claims, or any of Charter’s conduct in defending against Schuster’s previous
actions, he would still need to “obtain[] leave from this Court” before doing so. (Doc. No. 50 at
24.)
With regard to Schuster’s fourth, fifth, and sixth requests (Doc. No. 99 at 21 ¶¶ 140–44) –
pertaining to the asserted need for clarification of the Court’s Filing Injunction – the Court finds
that the terms of the Filing Injunction are clear on their face. Accordingly, the Court declines to
engage with Schuster’s requests for further explanation of the Filing Injunction or his invitations
to provide advisory opinions on matters that are plainly outside the scope of the Filing Injunction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Schuster’s requests for clarification of the Court’s Filing
Injunction are DENIED AS MOOT.
Finally, the Court sees no reason to lift the Filing Injunction. Consistent with the factors
set forth in Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986), and for the reasons
outlined in the Court’s April 8, 2021 order, the Court remains persuaded that a filing injunction is
necessary to “discourage[] [Schuster] from continuing with” his “consistent pattern of ‘vexatious,
harassing [and] duplicative lawsuits,’” which “caused needless expense” to “Charter’s counsel, his
own (former) counsel, and the Court,” and resulted in the “wholesale abuse of the judicial process.”
(Doc. No. 50 at 19–22) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT Schuster’s request to lift the Filing Injunction (Doc. No. 100 at 5) is DENIED.

3

Case 1:18-cv-01826-RJS Document 101 Filed 06/26/23 Page 4 of 4

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to send a copy of this Order to Schuster via
email at the updated email address listed on the electronic case docket and via mail at the address
listed on his most recent Notice of Change of Address (2266 Fifth Ave., P.O. Box 790, New York,
NY 10037). (See Doc. No. 79.)
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 26, 2023
New York, New York
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
Sitting by Designation

4