Roberts v. The Guidance Center of Westchester

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAZMINE ROBERTS; MINOR CHILD, Plaintiff, -against- WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES; WESTCHESTER COUNTY POLICE; WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WESTCHESTER COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH; 20-CV-8409 (LTS) SECTION 8 HOUSING CVR; THE GUIDANCE CENTER OF WESTCHESTER; WESTCHESTER ORDER MANAGEMENT/HUGUENOT COURT LLC; MT. VERNON POLICE DEPARTMENT; YONKERS POLICE DEPARTMENT; NEW ROCHELLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; WHITE PLAINS POLICE DEPARTMENT; WHITE PLAINS HOSPITAL; WESTCHESTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE; LEGAL SERVICES OF THE HUDSON VALLEY; U.S. POST OFFICE, Defendants. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, alleging that Defendants violated her rights. By order issued June 29, 2021, the Court dismissed this action for failure to state a claim for relief but granted Plaintiff sixty days’ leave to replead valid municipal liability claims in a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint, and by civil judgment dated September 20, 2021, (ECF No. 12), the Court dismissed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 14, 2021. (ECF No. 15.) By Mandate issued on April 11, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal because “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” (ECF No. 16.) On June 5, 2024, Plaintiff emailed chambers seeking reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of this action. The Court declines to substantively address Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. The Court directs Plaintiff not to contact chambers. Plaintiff must contact the court’s Pro

Se Intake Unit at (212) 805-0175, should she need procedural advice or have any procedural questions about her case.1 Should Plaintiff wish to seek reconsideration in this case, she must file a motion and mail it or submit it in person to the Pro Se Intake Unit at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Room 250, 2nd Floor, New York, New York 10007. CONCLUSION The Court declines to substantively address Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. Plaintiff is advised not to contact chambers. Plaintiff may call the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit at (212) 805-0175, should she need procedural advice or have any procedural questions about her case. Should Plaintiff wish to seek reconsideration in this case, she must file a motion and mail it or submit it in person to the Pro Se Intake Unit at the United States District Court for

the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Room 250, 2nd Floor, New York, New York 10007. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an

1 The employees of this court are not permitted to provide any legal advice. appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: June 12, 2024 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge