Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-03698
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Judge Schofield struck a foul-language letter, ordered respectful filings, and allowed objections to be refiled appropriately.
Pro se Plaintiff Towaki Komatsu, whose letter was struck and whose future communications with the court were subject to the order’s language requirement.
What happened
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, pro se Plaintiff Towaki Komatsu sent a letter objecting to an earlier court order. The letter contained foul and offensive language.
The court ordered Komatsu to avoid inappropriate, crude, or profane language in communications with the court. It said he could file objections to the earlier order if the filing used appropriate language.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the clerk to strike the letter and mail Komatsu a copy of the order. The order warned that refusing to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal of the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-03698
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 15, 2021
Background
Pro se Plaintiff Towaki Komatsu filed a letter objecting to the court’s order at Docket No. 542. The letter used foul and offensive language.
Order
The court recognized that a self-represented plaintiff generally receives some flexibility because of unfamiliarity with legal procedures, but stated that this does not excuse disparaging or profane language. The court ordered Komatsu to refrain from using inappropriate, crude, or profane language in communications with the court.
The order stated that refusal to comply could result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action with prejudice. It also stated that Komatsu could file objections to Docket No. 542 if the filing used appropriate language.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the clerk to strike Komatsu’s letter at Docket No. 546 because it contained foul and offensive language. The clerk was also directed to mail Komatsu a copy of the order. The opinion did not decide the substance of Komatsu’s objections to the earlier order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.