James v. The State University of New York
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-04856
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In James v. The State University of New York, Judge Rearden denied James’s objections and requests concerning filings, contempt, and a stay.
Jeremy Allan James must follow the court’s filing limits and applicable individual rules; The State University of New York was not held in contempt.
What happened
In James v. The State University of New York, Jeremy Allan James asked the court to review letters he had sent to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker. He also asked to keep filing letters in multiple parts and without length limits, to hold the defendant in contempt, and to pause the case.
The court denied James’s objections to Judge Parker’s scheduling order, concluding that the order was not clearly wrong or contrary to law. It also denied the request for multipart and unlimited letters, denied the contempt request because the court had not issued a ruling that the defendant could have violated, and denied the request to pause the case as moot.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden ordered James not to file letters in multiple parts and required him to follow page limits and the judges’ filing rules. Future scheduling and discovery requests must go to Judge Parker, and filings that violate the court’s rules or orders may be removed from the record.
The detailed version
- James v. The State University of New York · No. 1:22-cv-04856
- Rearden
- Jan. 30, 2023
Background
Jeremy Allan James asked the district court to review two letters he had previously submitted to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, who was assigned responsibility for general pretrial management. Judge Parker had already addressed those letters. James also asked to continue submitting letters in multiple parts and at whatever length he chose, requested that The State University of New York be held in contempt, and sought a stay—meaning a pause—of the action until his requests were addressed.
Objections to the Scheduling Order
To the extent James’s letters were objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) to Judge Parker’s January 11, 2023 scheduling order, the court denied those objections. Rule 72(a) permits objections to a magistrate judge’s decision on a non-dispositive pretrial matter, and requires the district judge to change or set aside the order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court said that, assuming Rule 72(a) applied, Judge Parker’s order met neither standard. The court also recognized Judge Parker’s broad discretion over scheduling and discovery-related matters.
Limits on Filings
The court denied James’s request to submit letters in multiple parts and without length limits. It ordered that James not file letters in multiple parts going forward and comply with page limits. The court warned that future filings violating its rules or orders, including the ban on multipart requests and the page limits, may be stricken from the record as improperly filed. James must follow Judge Rearden’s Individual Rules and Practices for matters addressed to her and Judge Parker’s Individual Rules of Practice for scheduling and discovery matters.
Contempt Request
The court denied James’s request to hold The State University of New York in contempt. A contempt finding requires clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor violated a court ruling. The court stated that it had not yet issued any ruling that the defendant could arguably have violated.
Stay Request and Disposition
Judge Rearden denied James’s request for a stay as moot. The court stated that future scheduling requests should be directed to Judge Parker because she was responsible for discovery in the matter. The order therefore denied James’s Rule 72(a) objections, denied his request for multipart and unlimited filings, denied his contempt request, and denied his stay request as moot.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.