Pasha v. New York State Department of Health
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-03355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Pasha v. New York State Department of Health, Judge Ramos’s ruling on Pasha’s appeal-certification motion is unclear from the provided text.
Talha S. Pasha and the named defendants, because the requested certification concerns interlocutory review of orders governing communications, filings, and case management.
What happened
In Pasha v. New York State Department of Health, Talha S. Pasha asked the court to certify three earlier orders for immediate appeal under a federal statute allowing limited appeals before a case ends. The orders concerned limits on his communications with opposing counsel, requests to amend filings, requests to reconsider decisions, and requests to remove documents from the court record.
Pasha argued that the state defendants and their lawyer made misleading allegations about his emails and that the court improperly restricted his speech, required him to respond to those allegations, denied several requests, and failed to protect his constitutional rights. He argued that the legal questions were important, genuinely disputed, and that an immediate appeal could speed up the case.
The provided text does not state whether Judge Ramos granted or denied the motion to certify the orders for interlocutory appeal. It contains Pasha’s motion and ends with “SO ORDERED,” but the specific disposition is not included.
The detailed version
- Pasha v. New York State Department of Health · No. 1:22-cv-03355
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 9, 2024
Nature of the filing
Talha S. Pasha, who is identified in the filing as proceeding without an attorney, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for certification of three earlier orders—Orders 65, 69, and 83—for interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal taken before the district court has finished the case. Under § 1292(b), the district court may certify an order if it involves a controlling legal question, there is substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal could materially advance the case.
Pasha’s arguments
Pasha argued that the state defendants and their counsel made allegedly false or misleading statements about approximately 34 emails he sent during an eight-week period. The filing says defense counsel described the communications as excessive, inappropriate, harassing, bullying, brash, discourteous, or uncivil. Pasha maintained that the communications concerned his litigation and that the allegations were made separately from the defendants’ legal arguments.
Pasha contended that the state defendants’ conduct and the court’s responses violated his rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and amounted to retaliation connected to his employment-discrimination claims. He also argued that the court’s actions improperly required him to provide statements responding to the allegations, limited his communications with opposing counsel, denied requests to reconsider or amend filings, denied a request to expedite the case, and denied requests to strike documents from the record.
Orders at issue
According to the filing:
- An earlier court directive required Pasha to explain why an order limiting his communications with defense counsel should not issue. - Order 65 directed Pasha to consolidate requests for information when possible to limit communications with opposing counsel. - Order 69 denied Pasha’s requests for reconsideration, to add substantive arguments to a reply, and to expedite the case. - Order 83 denied Pasha’s request to strike documents, including the filing discussing his emails, and denied his request to add substantive arguments supporting amendment of his complaint.
Pasha argued that the court lacked a sufficiently clear record and specific findings to support the limits on his communications. He also argued that the court failed to balance the need for those limits against possible interference with his rights and improperly relied on documents that, in his view, should not have remained publicly accessible.
Requested relief
Pasha asked the district court to amend Orders 65, 69, and 83 to include the statutory certification language required for an interlocutory appeal. His proposed questions included whether the state defendants’ conduct was retaliatory, whether the court abused its discretion, whether the state defendants or the court violated his constitutional rights or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and whether the orders prejudiced his case.
Disposition
The provided text does not include an express ruling granting, denying, or granting in part and denying in part the motion. It ends with the notation “SO ORDERED,” but the text supplied does not identify what Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered. The filing also refers in one place to Order 82 while otherwise referring to Order 83; the supplied text does not resolve whether that reference is a typographical error.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.