Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-01725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital, Judge McMahon struck a lengthy filing, denied related requests, and barred further filings except an appeal of this order.
Nella Manko’s ability to file documents in this closed case was restricted. The clerk was directed not to accept further documents from her, except a notice of appeal of this order, and Manko was denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for the appeal.
What happened
Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital concerned filings made after the court had closed the case and warned Nella Manko that only documents directed to the appeals court would be accepted. Manko nevertheless filed an 800-plus-page reconsideration motion and other documents.
The court concluded that Manko’s appeal from a non-final order did not remove the court’s authority over the case. It also found that she had not shown why she should be allowed to keep filing documents in the closed action.
Judge McMahon directed the clerk not to accept further documents from Manko, except a notice of appeal of this order. The court struck the 800-plus-page motion, denied Manko’s motion for an extension of time to appeal and other relief, and denied her request to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal.
The detailed version
- Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital · No. 1:21-cv-01725
- Colleen McMahon
- July 10, 2023
Background
The court had dismissed this action without prejudice on March 1, 2021, because Nella Manko was barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 from filing a new action without the court’s permission, which she had not obtained. The appeals court dismissed her appeal from that dismissal as frivolous. The district court later denied Manko’s motion for reconsideration, and the appeals court dismissed her appeal from that decision as untimely.
In the order denying reconsideration, the district court warned that the clerk would accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court further warned that if Manko filed other frivolous or meritless documents, it could require her to explain why she should not be barred from filing additional documents in the action.
Manko then filed an 800-plus-page motion for reconsideration. The court directed the clerk to strike that motion from the docket and terminate it. After Manko continued filing documents, the court ordered her to show why she should not be prohibited from filing additional papers in the closed matter without permission. Manko sought more time to respond but did not explain why she should be allowed to continue filing. She also filed an appeal from the non-final show-cause order and a 93-page motion seeking more time to appeal and raising other matters.
Court’s Reasoning
The court held that Manko’s appeal from the non-final show-cause order did not remove the district court’s authority over the case. It determined that the appeal was premature and did not prevent the district court from acting. The court also found that Manko had not given a reason why it should refrain from restricting further filings, particularly because she had continued filing documents the court considered frivolous.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that Manko’s appeal was not taken in good faith. In this context, that certification meant the court determined that the appeal did not present a nonfrivolous issue for review.
Disposition
The court directed the clerk to strike Manko’s motion for reconsideration, ECF
- It denied Manko’s motion for an extension of time to appeal and other relief, ECF
- It also denied Manko’s application to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal, ECF
- Finally, the court directed the clerk not to accept further documents from Manko for filing in this action, with the sole exception of a notice of appeal of this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.