Ballentine v. Barak
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-00515
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ballentine v. Barak, Magistrate Judge Moses warned that unauthorized filings may be disregarded or stricken.
The order primarily affects plaintiff Quintin J. Ballentine’s future filings and establishes the filing sequence for the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss and Ballentine’s response.
What happened
In Ballentine v. Barak, Quintin J. Ballentine, who is representing himself, filed a letter and a 38-page brief before the defendants filed their expected motion to dismiss. He said the filings supported his claims about alleged mistreatment while living in supported housing operated by Post Graduate Center for Mental Health.
The court said the filings were improper because court filings must follow the required order: the defendants file the opening motion, Ballentine files an opposition, and the defendants file a reply. The court said Ballentine may file an opposition brief, limited to 8,750 words or 25 pages, after the defendants file their motion. It also said his letter was not an allowed type of letter application.
Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses directed that future unauthorized letters and briefs will be disregarded and may be removed from the record. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Ballentine at two listed addresses.
The detailed version
- Ballentine v. Barak · No. 1:25-cv-00515
- Analisa Torres
- June 25, 2025
Background
Quintin J. Ballentine, proceeding without a lawyer, alleges in his Second Amended Complaint that Jacob Barak and Post Graduate Center for Mental Health mistreated him and others while he was a resident in a supported housing apartment operated by Post Graduate Center for Mental Health. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was due July 21, 2025, but the defendants had not yet filed it when the court issued this order.
During the week before the order, Ballentine filed a June 19 letter containing what he described as reflections relevant to his case and mental-health advocacy. He also filed a 38-page brief presenting legal arguments supporting his claims.
Court’s ruling
The court stated that both filings were improper because motion practice follows an ordered sequence: opening papers, opposition papers, and reply papers. Because no motion was pending, the court said there was no reason for Ballentine to file a brief at that time. The court explained that after the defendants file their anticipated motion to dismiss, Ballentine may file an opposition brief limited to 8,750 words or 25 pages.
The court also stated that Ballentine’s letter did not fit any category of application that may be made by letter. It warned that future unauthorized filings, including letters and briefs, will be disregarded and may be stricken from the record. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Ballentine at the two addresses listed in the order. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses did not decide the merits of Ballentine’s underlying claims or the anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.