Zietek v. Pinnacle Nursing & Rehab Center
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-05488
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Zietek v. Pinnacle, Judge Torres denied Zietek’s appeal and affirmed Judge Cott’s order scheduling a competency hearing.
Genevieve Zietek, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and Pinnacle Nursing & Rehab Center. The ruling required no change to the competency-hearing order and ended Zietek’s appeal of that order.
What happened
In Zietek v. Pinnacle Nursing & Rehab Center, the court reviewed an order scheduling a hearing to determine whether Genevieve Zietek was competent. Zietek had said she would not attend the hearing, and Judge James L. Cott ordered her to attend and warned that missing it could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Zietek appealed Judge Cott’s order after she did not attend the first scheduled hearing and another hearing was set for November 16, 2022. The court reviewed the scheduling order under a standard that permits reversal only if the order was clearly wrong.
Judge Analisa Torres denied Zietek’s appeal and affirmed Judge Cott’s order. The clerk was directed to close the appeal and mail Zietek a copy of the order; the opinion states that Zietek was representing herself.
The detailed version
- Zietek v. Pinnacle Nursing & Rehab Center · No. 1:21-cv-05488
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 18, 2022
Background
The court had referred the action to Judge James L. Cott to determine Genevieve Zietek’s competency. On October 7, 2022, Judge Cott scheduled a competency hearing for October 27. On October 26, Pinnacle Nursing & Rehab Center filed a letter from Zietek stating that she did not intend to attend. Judge Cott then ordered Zietek to attend and warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Zietek did not attend the October 27 hearing. Judge Cott rescheduled the hearing for November 16 and again warned that failure to attend could lead to dismissal. Zietek appealed Judge Cott’s order. On November 16, Pinnacle filed another letter from Zietek stating that she did not intend to attend the rescheduled hearing.
Court’s Analysis
The court treated the scheduling order as a non-dispositive order, meaning an order that does not resolve the parties’ claims. Under the clearly erroneous standard, the order could be overturned only if the court reviewing it was left with a definite and firm conviction that Judge Cott had made a mistake. The court held that Judge Cott did not err by scheduling a competency hearing because the action had been referred to him for a competency determination.
Disposition
The court denied Zietek’s appeal and affirmed Judge Cott’s order. The clerk was directed to terminate the appeal at ECF No. 75 and mail a copy of the order to Zietek, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.