Jane Doe v. New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE)

Opinion

DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED:_2/23/2023 JANE DOE, Plaintiff, -against- 1:23-cv-198 (MKV) NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ORDER EDUCATION, et al. Defendants.

MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: The Court is in receipt of a letter dated February 9, 2023 from the pro se Plaintiff. [ECF No. 17.] Among other things, Plaintiff requests that the Court “amend[]” its Order granting Defendants an extension of time to respond to the Complaint. [See ECF Nos. 12, 16, 17.] That request is DENIED. This Court has “inherent authority to manage [its] dockets ... with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016). Moreover, the pro se Plaintiff is reminded of her obligation to avoid “frivolous or vexatious filings.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 477 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). The Court is also in receipt of Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed under a pseudonym and amended motion for leave to proceed under a pseudonym. [See ECF Nos. 18, 20.] The Court will consider these motions in due course. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff at her address of record. SO ORDERED. J Kay / fer □□ Date: February 23, 2023 New York, NY MARY Y OC United States District Judge