Doall v. New York State Unified Court System

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------X DENISE DOALL,

Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 23-CV-0364(JS)(SIL)

NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM; OFFICE OF COURT ADMINITRATION; JUSTIN BARRY; NANCY BARRY; SECRET “UNQUALIFIED” COMMITTEE PANEL,

Defendants. ----------------------------------X APPEARANCES For Plaintiff: Denise Doall, pro se 71 Vinton Street Long Beach, New York 11561

For Defendants: No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:

On January 19, 2023, plaintiff Denise Doall (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se Complaint on the Court’s employment discrimination complaint form against the New York State Unified Court System, the Office of Court Administration, Justin Barry, Nancy Barry, and the “Secret ‘Unqualified’ Committee Panel” (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to several federal laws including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as codified, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (“ADEA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 to 12117 (“ADA”) (hereafter, Page 1 of 3 the “Complaint”). (See ECF No. 1.) Simultaneously, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (hereafter, the “IFP Application”). (See ECF No. 2.) Upon review of Plaintiff’s IFP Application, the Court finds that Plaintiff is qualified to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to file the Complaint without prepayment of the filing fee or security therefor; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must forward to the United States Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York copies of Plaintiff’s Summonses, Complaint, and this Order for service upon the New York State Unified Court System and the Office of Court Administration without prepayment of fees; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because Plaintiff has not included allegations in her Complaint concerning the conduct or inaction attributable to Defendants Justin Barry, Nancy Barry, or the “Secret ‘Unqualified’ Committee Panel”,1 thereby rendering her

1 Indeed, apart from the case caption, none of these Defendants are included in the Complaint. (See Compl., ECF No. 1 in toto.) The Court further notes that Plaintiff failed to include addresses for Defendants Justin Barry, Nancy Barry, and the “Secret Page 2 of 3 claims against these Defendants noncompliant with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Justin Barry, Nancy Barry, and the “Secret ‘Unqualified’ Committee Panel” are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff filing an Amended Complaint;2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is to mail

a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff at her address of record, noting said service upon the Case Docket; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith; therefore, 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 (1962). SO ORDERED.

_/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT_____ JOANNA SEYBERT, U.S.D.J.

Dated: June 8, 2023 Central Islip, New York

‘Unqualified’ Committee Panel”, thereby making service by the U.S. Marshals Service not possible.

2 Plaintiff is encouraged to avail herself of the free resources provided by the Pro Se Legal Assistance Program run by Hofstra Law School. The Program’s telephone number is: (631) 297-2575. Its e-mail address is: PSLAP@hofstra.edu. Page 3 of 3