Jackson v. New York State et al

Filing 154

ORDER denying 149 , 150 Plaintiff's Motions for Miscellaneous Relief and directing that Magistrate Judge Marion W. Payson consider whether to appoint counsel for the Plaintiff and conduct expedited discovery. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on September 27, 2011. (MK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
DONA J. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,

06-CV-6364
ORDER

v.
NEW YORK STATE, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________

Plaintiff Dona J. Jackson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,
commenced a civil rights action in the Northern District of New
York pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivation of her
constitutional rights, which was later transferred to this Court.1
On February 6, 2007, this Court issued a decision and Order denying
Plaintiff’s “combined motion” for relief. (Docket No. 139.)

In

that motion, Plaintiff requested, inter alia, that this Court
“recuse or disqualify” a Magistrate of the Northern District of New
York, disqualify the Attorney General’s office from representing
the Defendants in this case, appoint a special prosecutor and/or
impanel a federal grand jury to investigate her case, issue an
order of protection against the defendants, immediately grant her
the relief she requests in her complaint ($10 million and certain
injunctive and declarative relief), and issue a default judgment

1

Familiarity with the facts and procedural background of this case as set forth in this
Court’s previous Orders, and those of the Northern District of New York is presumed. (Docket
Nos. 129, 137, 139, 143, 144, 146); Jackson v. New York State, No. 03-CV-0577 (Northern
District of New York ).
Page -1-

against the Defendants for failing to file an Answer to her third
amended Complaint.

The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion in its

entirety.
Plaintiff now files two separate Motions (Docket Nos. 149,
150), which - as best the Court can discern - are identical to each
other in substance, and which both seek much of the same relief
this Court previously denied in its Decision and Order dated
February 6, 2007.
requested,

Accordingly, to the extent the same relief is

Plaintiff’s

motions

are

denied

with

prejudice.

Plaintiff is directed to review this Court’s Decision and Order and
the Court’s previous Orders in this case, as well as those Orders
filed in the Northern District of New York, as Plaintiff has
continuously sought and been denied similar relief by this Court
and the Northern District of New York.

Plaintiff has presented no

new facts or circumstances to warrant a reconsideration of any of
the previous Orders.
Plaintiff now also requests an Order directing the Defendants
to respond to this Court’s Order to Show Cause for failure to
prosecute

pursuant

to

Local

Rule

41(b)

and

that

this

Court

“reschedule” an “Order to Show Cause hearing.” (Docket Nos. 146,
147, 148 149).

The Order was issued for Plaintiff’s seeming

failure to prosecute this case, which, as the plaintiff in the
case, she alone is required to do. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local
Rule 41(b).

Further, the Court is not required to schedule oral

Page -2-

argument on such an Order, and Local Rule 41(b), which was provided
to the Plaintiff, specifically states that court appearances are
not required.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests are denied as

moot.
Plaintiff also seeks an immediate trial by jury and immediate
relief with respect to all of her claims.

However, a review of the

docket sheet indicates that discovery in this case is not yet
complete (or may not have begun) and the parties have not yet had
an opportunity to file any final dispositive motions. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion is denied as premature.
Lastly, Plaintiff moves for the recusal of the undersigned as
well as all other federal and state judges in New York and its
bordering states.

For the reasons set forth herein and in this

Court’s previous Order, Plaintiff’s motion for recusal of judges
(including the undersigned) is denied with prejudice.

Plaintiff

has not presented any facts which would reasonably support such a
request; and it appears that the only possible reason for seeking
recusal is that the undersigned has heretofore denied several of
her motions and/or dismissed several of her claims. However, such
a basis is insufficient to support a motion for recusal. See In re
International Business Machines Corp., 618 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1980).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for recusal is denied.
For the reasons set forth herein, and in this Court’s previous
Decisions and Orders, and those of the Northern District of New

Page -3-

York, Plaintiff’s motions are hereby denied in their entirety.
In a separate Order, this case has now been referred to
Magistrate

Marion

W.

Payson,

who

will,

presumably,

Order

a

scheduling conference and/or issue a scheduling Order for the
parties to proceed with this case.

Following such a conference,

Judge Payson is directed to consider whether to appoint counsel to
assist Plaintiff with the prosecution of her case. Judge Payson is
also directed to conduct expedited discovery in this case.
Plaintiff is hereby warned that the failure to prosecute this
case and to comply with any Order of the Court, including any
scheduling Order, and the continued filing of repetitive and
patently frivolous motions may result in sanctions pursuant to Rule
11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A possible sanction

under these circumstances may include the dismissal of her case.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
s/Michael A. Telesca
Michael A. Telesca
United States District Judge
DATED: Rochester, New York
September 27, 2011

Page -4-