Pasha v. New York State Department of Health
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-03355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pasha v. New York State Department of Health, Judge Ramos denied Pasha’s requests to strike docket documents and reassign the case.
Pasha’s requests were denied; document 55 and the other challenged documents were not removed, and the case was not reassigned.
What happened
In Pasha v. New York State Department of Health, Pasha asked the court to remove document 55 and later documents from the public record because they referred to his emails to defense counsel. He also asked that the case be reassigned to a different judge.
The court said document 55 had been used in making decisions about Pasha’s proposed amended complaint and communications with defense counsel. Because judicial records generally are open to the public and Pasha offered no privacy or other reason strong enough to overcome that presumption, the court denied both requests to strike the documents. The court also found no credible basis for reassignment.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Pasha’s requests to strike document 55 and other documents and to reassign the case. The court also said it would not consider additional arguments Pasha submitted in support of his already fully briefed motion to amend his complaint.
The detailed version
- Pasha v. New York State Department of Health · No. 1:22-cv-03355
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 13, 2024
Requests to Remove Documents
Pasha asked the court to strike, or remove, document 55 from the public docket. The defendants opposed the request and explained that document 55 was the New York State Department of Health’s opposition to Pasha’s request to file a sixth version of a proposed amended complaint. The document also asked the court to address Pasha’s communications with defense counsel, including 34 emails sent over two months that the document described as becoming excessive and harassing.
The court explained that judicial records generally are presumed to be available for public inspection. That presumption is especially strong when a document was submitted as a basis for the court’s decision-making. The court found that document 55 had served that function: after receiving it, the court denied Pasha’s request to amend his complaint further and directed him to explain why limits on his communications with defense counsel should not be imposed. The court later directed Pasha to consolidate information requests when possible to limit those communications.
Pasha did not identify countervailing considerations, such as privacy concerns, that would overcome the presumption of public access. The court also found that the references to Pasha’s emails were not intended to falsely accuse him of criminal conduct or otherwise prejudice him. The request to strike document 55 was therefore denied.
Request to Strike Later Documents and Reassign the Case
Pasha later asked the court to strike document 55 and every following document containing what he described as defamatory comments. He also asked that all pending decisions be reviewed by a fair and impartial judge because he believed the court might consider him a criminal and be biased against him.
The court denied the request to strike document 55 and other documents for the same reasons. It also denied the request for reassignment, finding that Pasha had not presented credible allegations warranting a change of judge.
Additional Arguments on Motion to Amend
Pasha submitted another letter providing additional arguments in support of his pending motion to amend his complaint. The court advised him that the motion had already been fully briefed and that the court would issue a decision in due course. The court stated that it would not consider the additional arguments.
Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Pasha’s requests to strike document 55 and other documents, including references he characterized as defamatory, and denied his request for case reassignment. The order did not decide the pending motion to amend the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.