Everett v. New York City Department of Education
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-07043
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Everett v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Cronan ordered the pro se plaintiff to provide limited information about drafting assistance.
Stephanie N. Everett, who was proceeding without a lawyer, was required to provide limited information about any legal assistance she received in drafting her filings. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was not decided by this order.
What happened
In Everett v. New York City Department of Education, Stephanie N. Everett opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss without a lawyer. The court questioned whether she received legal assistance preparing her complaint or opposition.
The court ordered Everett to file a letter by June 16, 2022, stating whether she received assistance. If she did, she must identify who assisted her, which documents were assisted, and whether the help covered all or only parts of those documents. She was not required to disclose details of the assistance or any legal advice.
Judge John P. Cronan explained that receiving drafting assistance is not improper, but it may affect how the court interprets the filings. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the clerk was directed to mail the order to Everett.
The detailed version
- Everett v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-07043
- John Cronan
- June 9, 2022
What the order addressed
The court had received Stephanie N. Everett’s opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion identifies Everett as proceeding without a lawyer and says the court wanted information about whether she received legal assistance in preparing either her complaint or her opposition.
Court’s order
The court ordered Everett to file a letter by June 16, 2022, addressing whether she received assistance in drafting either document. If she received assistance, the letter had to state who provided it, which documents received assistance, and whether the assistance covered all or only parts of those documents. The court specifically directed her not to disclose other details about the assistance or any legal advice she received.
Reason and disposition
Judge John P. Cronan stated that there is nothing improper about a person proceeding without a lawyer receiving help drafting court documents. He explained that whether such assistance was received affects how the court interprets the complaint and opposition. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. It also directed the clerk to mail a copy of the order to Everett.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.