Carter v. Park
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-10887
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Carter v. Park, Judge Furman revoked Carter’s electronic-filing access after prohibited court contacts and inflammatory messages, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Darryl C. Carter, the self-represented plaintiff, lost electronic-filing privileges in this case and was denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Darryl C. Carter v. Molly Wasow Park, et al., the court reconsidered an earlier decision allowing Plaintiff Darryl C. Carter to file documents electronically. The court said Carter had directly emailed and called chambers, contrary to the court’s rules for people representing themselves.
The court also reviewed Carter’s communications with the electronic-filing help desk and other recipients, which it described as containing inappropriate and inflammatory language. The court concluded that Carter should not have electronic-filing access in this case.
Judge Jesse M. Furman vacated the earlier permission for electronic filing, directed the Clerk not to provide or to rescind Carter’s electronic-filing privileges, and denied fee-free appeal status. The court warned that further violations or inappropriate filings could lead to sanctions, including dismissal, but it did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Carter v. Park · No. 1:23-cv-10887
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 26, 2024
Background
On March 21, 2024, the court granted Darryl C. Carter’s request for permission to use electronic filing. On March 25, Carter emailed and called the court, which the opinion says violated the court’s individual rules for civil cases involving people representing themselves. The opinion also discusses Carter’s communications with the electronic-filing help desk and other recipients, which included language the court characterized as inappropriate and inflammatory.
Court’s action
After reviewing the docket in a prior related proceeding and Carter’s March 25 submissions, the court concluded that Carter should not have electronic-filing access in this case. The court therefore vacated its March 21 endorsement granting permission for electronic case filing, while directing the Clerk to leave that endorsement on the docket. The Clerk was directed not to provide Carter with electronic-filing privileges or, if they had already been provided, to rescind them.
The court reminded Carter that he could not contact chambers directly by telephone, email, regular mail, or other means. It directed him to communicate with the court through the Pro Se Office under the court’s rules. The court warned that violating the order or filing inappropriate or inflammatory materials in the future could result in sanctions, including dismissal of the case. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
Appeal status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Carter permission to proceed without paying the required appeal-related fees. Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed the Clerk to mail Carter a copy of the order.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.