Newsom v. American Airlines, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05889
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Newsom v. American Airlines, Judge Swain ordered Deirdre Newsom to explain why future filings should not be restricted.
Deirdre Newsom, who may be barred from filing further documents in this action except documents directed to the Court of Appeals if she does not timely provide an adequate explanation.
What happened
In Newsom v. American Airlines Inc., the court had already dismissed Deirdre Newsom’s complaint because she neither paid the filing fee nor asked to waive it. The court also denied her request to seal the case and warned that further meritless filings could lead to filing restrictions.
Newsom later sent two letters by fax asking the Clerk’s Office to restrict access to the closed case. The court said these requests sought relief it had already denied, violated an earlier order limiting accepted filings to documents directed to the Court of Appeals, and violated the court’s filing procedures for people representing themselves.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Newsom to show good cause within 30 days why she should not be barred from filing further documents in this action, except documents directed to the Court of Appeals. The court has not yet imposed that bar; it said the restriction will be entered if she does not timely submit an adequate declaration. The court also denied fee-waived status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Newsom v. American Airlines, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05889
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 2, 2024
Background
Deirdre Newsom filed the action without a lawyer. On September 6, 2023, the court dismissed her complaint because she had not paid the fee required to bring a civil action and had not asked for the fee to be waived. On February 27, 2024, the court denied Newsom’s request to place the action under seal. That order informed her that the Clerk of Court would accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and warned that the court could require her to explain why she should not be barred from filing further documents if she submitted frivolous or meritless materials.
Newsom then sent two letters to the Clerk’s Office by fax asking that access to the closed case be restricted. The court stated that the letters essentially sought relief it had already denied. It also found that the submissions violated the February 27 order and the court’s standing order requiring people proceeding without a lawyer to file documents with the Pro Se Unit by regular mail or in person. The opinion notes that the court’s Clerk’s Office can seal only records maintained by the court.
Order to Show Cause
The court ordered Newsom to show cause—that is, to explain why a filing injunction should not be imposed. A filing injunction is a restriction on submitting further documents in a case. Within 30 days of the order, Newsom must submit a declaration stating good cause why the injunction should not be entered. The order specifies where the declaration must be mailed or delivered in person.
The court did not yet impose the filing injunction. It stated that Newsom will be barred from filing further documents in this action, except documents directed to the Court of Appeals, if she does not submit the declaration on time or if the declaration does not provide good cause. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waived status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.