Schuster v. Charter Communications, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: April 8, 2021
• Docket: 1:18-cv-01826
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X AKOBI SCHUSTER,

Plaintiff, 18 CIVIL 1826 (RJS)

-against- JUDGMENT

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------X It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 8, 2021, Charter’s motion for sanctions is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Schuster’s complaint is DISMISSED with

prejudice. Additionally, from the date of this Opinion and Order, Schuster is barred from filing in any

tribunal any action, motion, petition, complaint, or request for relief that relates to or arises from (i)

the cable box incident alleged in Schuster’s complaint, as well as Charter’s alleged response to that

incident or Schuster’s OSHA claims; or (ii) any of Charter’s conduct in defending against his

previous actions – against any person or entity that encountered Schuster throughout this federal

litigation – without first obtaining leave from this Court. Any motion for leave must include the

caption “Request for Permission to File under Filing Injunction” and must be submitted to the Pro Se

Intake Unit of this Court along with Schuster’s proposed filings. If Schuster violates this Opinion and

Order and files any materials without first obtaining leave to file, any request will be denied for

failure to comply with this Opinion and Order, and Schuster may be subject to sanctions, including

monetary penalties or contempt. See, e.g., Ranasinghe v. Kennell, No. 16-cv-2170 (JMF), 2017 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 10512, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2017). The Court clarifies that this filing injunction

does not prevent Schuster from appealing from this Opinion and Order, but the Court certifies

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any such appeal would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962); accordingly, the case is closed.

Dated: New York, New York April 8, 2021

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of Co BY: | ) . \ / Deyuztty Clerk