Jackson v. New York State et al

Filing 174

ORDER denying 163 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on December 8, 2011. (MES)

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,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various
deprivations of her constitutional rights.

After denying several

of Plaintiff’s duplicative motions for, inter alia, recusal of the
undersigned and all other federal and state court judges in New
York and the surrounding states, the court referred the case to
Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson for all pre-trial matters.
(Docket No. 155.) Judge Payson scheduled a conference and the
parties met (Plaintiff appeared by telephone) with Judge Payson to
discuss the scheduling of discovery and any dispositive motion
deadlines.
Plaintiff then sent to Judge Payson a lengthy fax in which she
indicated that she believed that the undersigned was acting as a
“puppeteer” and Judge Payson a “puppet.”

Plaintiff also filed the

instant motion, treated as a motion to vacate the referral order,
in which she reiterates this notion, but states that it “is not an
attack on Judge Payson” and that Judge Payson and her secretary

1

treated Plaintiff with respect. (Docket No. 163.) The Court notes
that the transcript of the scheduling conference reveals that
Plaintiff appeared to be satisfied with the proposals made by Judge
Payson with respect to scheduling and moving the case forward.
(Docket No. 166.)
An Order of referral can be withdrawn only by the district
court,

“for

good

cause

shown

on

its

extraordinary circumstances shown by

own

motion,

or

under

any party.” 28 U.S.C. §

636(c)(4); Fellman v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 735 F2d 55, 58 (2d
Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff has not presented any rational reasons why

this

should

Court

vacate

the

referral

Order.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Further, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to raise arguments
previously rejected by the Court in its Orders denying Plaintiff’s
several

previous

motions

(for

example,

the

recusal

of

the

undersigned), the Court has already warned Plaintiff that she may
be subject to sanctions (including dismissal) for the continued
filing of patently frivolous and repetitive motions.
154.)

(Docket No.

The Court, however, notes that a motion to dismiss has been

filed by the Defendants in this case; accordingly, the Court will
consider the motion to dismiss before determining whether dismissal
is an appropriate sanction in this case. Nonetheless, the Court
finds that a sanction is appropriate for the filing of the instant,
repetitive and frivolous motion.

Therefore, it is hereby,

2

Ordered, that prior to filing any further motions, Plaintiff
must first seek permission to file any such motion by sending a
letter to the Court, no longer than one page stating, briefly, the
subject of such motion and the reasons why such relief should be
granted.

Failure to comply with this procedure will result in the

summary denial of any motion made by the Plaintiff in this case.
Plaintiff, however, is permitted to respond to any motion for
dismissal made by the Defendants without first seeking the Court’s
permission.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
s/Michael A. Telesca
Michael A. Telesca
United States District Judge
DATED: Rochester, New York
December 8, 2011

3