Young v. Merit Systems Protection Board
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-11151
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Young v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Judge Schofield ordered pro se petitioner Blake Young to amend his complaint and postponed the initial conference.
Blake Young must file an amended complaint by May 22, 2024. The Merit Systems Protection Board and the United States Postal Service are affected by the postponed conference and revised case-management schedule. The underlying dispute remains undecided in this order.
What happened
In Young v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Blake Young sought review of two Merit Systems Protection Board decisions involving his placement on leave by the United States Postal Service. He filed a short handwritten complaint after the court ordered him to submit a complaint complying with the federal rules.
The Government argued that the complaint still did not clearly state what employment action Young was challenging, what relief he wanted, or why he was entitled to it. The Government also noted that the attached documents appeared to concern a different placement-on-leave date than the decisions under review.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the Government’s request. She ordered Young to file an amended complaint by May 22, 2024, and moved the initial conference from May 8 to June 12, 2024. The order did not decide whether Young was entitled to relief on the underlying employment dispute.
The detailed version
- Young v. Merit Systems Protection Board · No. 1:23-cv-11151
- Lorna Schofield
- May 1, 2024
Background
Blake Young, appearing without a lawyer, sought review of two related Merit Systems Protection Board decisions concerning his placement on leave by the United States Postal Service. The Federal Circuit transferred the matter to the Southern District of New York after determining that it lacked jurisdiction over Young’s appeals because they involved personnel actions appealable to the Board and allegations of discrimination.
The district court previously ordered Young to file a complaint complying with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Young then filed a four-paragraph handwritten complaint and attached documents that appeared to concern a union grievance and an alleged emergency placement on April 7, 2016. The decisions under review, however, concerned an alleged placement on leave on or about October 25, 2016.
Government’s Request
The Merit Systems Protection Board and the Postal Service asked the court to postpone the initial pretrial conference and to order Young to file an amended complaint. They argued that the handwritten filing did not provide the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 and did not clearly identify the employment action being challenged, the relief sought, or the basis for that relief. The Government stated that it was considering a motion to dismiss but did not ask the court to decide such a motion in this order.
Ruling
The court marked the Government’s request “GRANTED.” It ordered Young to file an amended complaint by May 22, 2024. The court directed that the amended complaint explain which decisions Young challenged, what action he wanted the court to take concerning those decisions, and why he should receive relief.
The court also moved the initial pretrial conference to June 12, 2024, at 4:20 p.m., and required the parties to submit the specified case-management materials by June 5, 2024. The order did not reach the merits of Young’s challenge to the Board decisions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.