Jane Doe v. New York City Department of Education
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-00198
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jane Doe v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Vyskocil denied Doe’s request to change an extension order and deferred pseudonym motions.
Jane Doe and the defendants in the case; the order specifically denied Jane Doe’s request concerning the defendants’ extension of time.
What happened
In Jane Doe v. New York City Department of Education, the pro se plaintiff asked the court to amend an earlier order giving the defendants more time to respond to her complaint.
The court denied that request, explaining that it has authority to manage its docket efficiently. It also reminded Jane Doe to avoid frivolous or vexatious filings.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil said the court would consider Jane Doe’s motions to proceed under a pseudonym later. The clerk was asked to mail her a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Jane Doe v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-00198
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 23, 2023
Background
The court received a February 9, 2023 letter from pro se plaintiff Jane Doe. Among other requests, she asked the court to amend an earlier order granting the defendants an extension of time to respond to her complaint.
The court also received Jane Doe’s motion and amended motion for permission to proceed under a pseudonym. The opinion does not rule on those motions; it says they will be considered later.
Ruling
The court denied Jane Doe’s request to amend the extension order. It relied on its inherent authority to manage its docket efficiently and reminded her of her obligation to avoid frivolous or vexatious filings.
The court did not state that it granted or denied the pseudonym motions. It directed the clerk to mail a copy of the order to Jane Doe at her address of record.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.