Court To
Repeal Indigent Litigation?
Luis
Ángel Pérez,
Writing4light
Educator
& Advocate
July 26, 2017
The term “Pro Se” is Latin, meaning “on
one’s own behalf.” In the Department of Justice, Pro Se individuals are those
who are representing themselves in Court. Humans usually represent themselves
in Court because they cannot afford to pay for all of the Court fees & for
legal representation.
Snapshot Chronology
United States Court of Appeals’ Handling of Employment
Discrimination & Abuse of Power Complaints
Filed Against
The United Federation of Teachers / New
York State United Teachers (UFT/NYSUT) Union
Tuesday, September 08, 2015,
Employment Discrimination & Abuse of Power Complaints against the Department
of Education & the United Federation of Teachers / New York State United
Teachers (UFT/NYSUT) Union were submitted into
the United States District Court Southern District of New York.
Monday, February 01, 2016,
[approximately
one-hundred- fifty (150) days later], I received a District Court Order
to Amend Complaints filed against Union,
Court Order Signed by Judge: Wednesday, January
27, 2016,
Postmarked: one (1) day later – Thursday,
January 28, 2016,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow
Regular Mail:
four (4) days later – Monday, February
01, 2016.
Total Days from Issuance to Complainant:
five (5) days.
Thursday, March 24, 2016, [approximately
sixty (60) days later], Amended Complaints were mailed to the District
Court.
Thursday, October 06, 2016,
[approximately
one-hundred-eighty (180) days later], District Court issued an “Order to Dismiss” this Complaint, alleging
– “failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted”. Such Court Order was made despite the fact that
such “… claim…” was indeed included
in the amended complaint filed; specifically on the last section of said complaint,
specifically titled, “Relief”.
Court Order Signed by Judge: Friday, September
30, 2016,
Postmarked: three (3) days later – Monday,
October 03, 2016,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow Regular
Mail:
three (3) days later – Thursday, October
06, 2016.
Total Days from Issuance to Complainant:
six (6) days.
Thursday, October 20, 2016,
[approximately
fourteen (14) days later], a letter titled, “Request To Re-Open Case, Request For The Court To Raise The Strongest
Claim Suggested In This Pro-Se Complaint”, was mailed to the District
Court.
Here, among other things, I
indicated where exactly the “Relief” section
can be found within the amended complaint and even provided the District Court
with an extra copy of this particular section of the amended complaint.
Saturday, December 17, 2016,
[approximately
sixty (60) days later], I received a reply to my request to re-open the
case. The District Court issued a more firm order to dismiss the complaint against
the Union despite the fact that –
(A) The District Court never
officially ordered the UFT/NYSUT Union (Defendant)
to
respond to the complaint filed against them, &
(B) Despite the fact that the District
Court never actually order their United States Marshalls Service,
(or anyone else for that matter), to officially
serve said complaint upon
the UFT/NYSUT Union
(Defendant).
This particular Court Order also
included the following intimidating threat: “The Court certifies … that any appeal from this order would not be
taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the
purpose of an appeal.”; (“in forma
pauperis” meaning – free of court fees because of poverty).
This particular Court Order also
included the following instructions: “The
Clerk of Court is further directed not to accept any further submissions from
Plaintiff in this action, with the exception of documents that are directed to
the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.”
Signed by Judge: Monday, December 12,
2016,
Postmarked: three (3) days later – Thursday,
December 15, 2016,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow
Regular Mail:
two (2) days later – Saturday, December 17,
2016.
Total Days from Issuance to Complainant:
five (5) days.
Monday, January 02, 2017, [approximately
sixteen (16) days later], as instructed, a letter titled, “Notice Of Appeal To The U.S. Court Of
Appeals For The Second Circuit”, was mailed to the District Court but not
to the Court of Appeals.
Said letter was mailed to the
District Court and not directly to the Court of Appeals because the District
Court informed me that in order to start the appeals process in the United
States Court of Appeals, I would have to file a “Notice of Appeal” through the District Court but said notice must
be addressed to the Court of Appeals.
Thursday, January 12, 2017,
[approximately
ten (10) days later], I received from the U.S. Court of Appeals For
The Second Circuit the following:
(A) A letter,
(B) A packet of many forms to
fill out,
(C) A new docket number (17-55),
(D) A docket sheet with
inaccurate contact information of both parties, (Defendant & Plaintiff),
&
(E) The name of the Appellate
Judge assigned to the case.
Letter & Packet Dated: Monday, January
09, 2017,
Postmarked: on the same day – Monday, January
09, 2017,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or slow
regular mail:
three (3) days later – Thursday, January
12, 2017.
Total Days from Issuance to Complainant:
three (3) days.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017,
[approximately
five (5) days later], a packet & letter titled, “Court Fees, Docket Sheet Errors &
Corrections, Notice of Appearance & D-P Forms, & Mere Plea for Justice
For All”, were mailed to the Court of Appeals.
Here, among other things,
(A) I informed the Court of Appeals
of the contact information discrepancies depicted
on their Court Docket,
(B) I provided the Court of
Appeals with the accurate contact information, &
(C) I requested, once again, for
legal council assistance.
Saturday, February 04, 2017,
[approximately
nineteen (19) days later], I received a packet from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit containing redundant forms. The
content in this packet indicated that some of the forms & paperwork which I
mailed to them were improperly filed; “Missing
Information Statement (T-1080 Local Rule 27.1)”, & “Missing Proof of Service”. The Appellate Court also threatened to
dismiss the complaint effective February 17, if not corrected.
Letter & Packet Dated: Friday, January
27, 2017,
Postmarked: on the same day – Friday, January
27, 2017,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow
Regular Mail:
eight (8) days later – Saturday,
February 04, 2017.
Total Days from Issuance to Complainant:
eight (8) days.
Wednesday, February 08, 2017,
[approximately
four (4) days later], a packet & letter titled, “Form D-P, Proof of Service, Motion
Information Statement Form, & Two Other Pieces Mentioned Below”, were
mailed to the Court of Appeals.
Here, among other things, I
provided to the Court of Appeals the following:
(A) All the forms &
information which they had requested,
(B) Proof of service, via United
States Postal Service (USPS) Priority Mail Express,
of the amended complaints & relevant
documents to the Union, (served on February 07,
2017),
(C) Additional important
evidence, &
(D) A copy of the letter which
the previous Court House, (the District Court), had instructed me to
mail specifically to them – as a starting
point to appeal their decision in the
United States Court of Appeals For
The Second Circuit.
Thursday, February 16, 2017,
[approximately
eight (8) days later], I received a packet from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This packet contained redundant forms (again)
for me to fill out. This correspondence also indicated that a T-1080 Form was
missing & that I provided, “improper
proof of service”. The Court of Appeals alleged “improper proof of service” despite the fact that as proof of
service I had sent them a copy of the United States Postal Service (USPS) Priority
Mail Express & Tracking Information. As mentioned above, the Union was served on Tuesday, February 07, 2017.
Letter & Packet Dated: Monday,
February, 13, 2017,
Postmarked: on the same day – Monday,
February 13, 2017,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow
Regular Mail:
three (3) days later – Thursday,
February 16, 2017
Total Days from Issuance to Complainant:
three (3) days.
Friday, February 17, 2017,
[one (1)
day later], I phone the Court of Appeals and was essentially
instructed to do the packet all over again – including re-serving the amended
complaint & information to the Defendant (Union).
It was not made clear to me why I had to re-do the packet.
Additionally, I informed the Court
of Appeals that I had already sent them proof of service via USPS Priority
Express Mail receipts but the Court argued that because I have to re-do all of
the forms, I have to also re-serve the Defendant.
I informed the Court of Appeals that
the contact information in their Docket Sheet remained inaccurate for both
parties (Defendant & Plaintiff) despite the fact that I had previously sent
them the corrections. I was informed that the contact information will be corrected
once I provide the court with the forms which they were requesting.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017,
[approximately
four (4) days later], I phoned the Court of Appeals for
clarification and this time the Court of Appeals informed me that I do not have
to do the whole packet over again, as previously instructed. Instead, there
were just minor changes to be made. I was also informed that I do not have to
re-serve the complaints and related documents to the Defendant (Union), as previously instructed.
Turned out that all I needed to
do was –
(A) Fill out an “Acknowledgement And Notice of Appearance”
form,
(B) Fill out a “Certificate of Service” form for the “Acknowledgement And Notice of Appearance”
form, &
(C) Mail these two (2) to both
Defendant (Union) & the Court of Appeals.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017,
[one (1)
days later], the above requested information was completed & mailed
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit & to the Defendant
(Union).
Tuesday, February 28, 2017,
[approximately
six (6) days later], I received a suspicious & intimidating
letter from an entity proclaiming to be an administrator for the, “Pro Se Appeals Support Group (PSASG)”,
soliciting their services for financial gain.
Letter Dated: Wednesday, February 22,
2017,
Postmarked: three (3) days later – Saturday,
February 25, 2017,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow
Regular Mail:
three (3) days later – Tuesday, February
28, 2017.
Total Days from Issuance to Complainant:
six (6) days.
Friday, March 03, 2017, [approximately
three (3) days later], I received a letter titled, “Notice Of Appearance For Substitute,
Additional, Or Amicus Counsel”, from an entity proclaiming to be the
Union’s Attorney; Stuart Lichten, Lichten & Bright, PC, 373 Park Avenue
South, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10016.
This particular letter indicated
that said firm is making an appearance for, “Defendant-Appellee United Federation of Teachers”. This particular letter
also indicated, “Substitute counsel
(replacing lead counsel: pro se)”. On this particular letter, the term “pro se” was typed on the line designated
for & labeled “(name/firm)”.
Letter Signed: Wednesday, January 04,
2017,
Postmarked Both: Tuesday, February 28,
2017 & Wednesday, March 01, 2017,
fifty-five & fifty-six days later,
respectively,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow
Regular Mail: Friday, March 03, 2017.
Total Days from Issuance to Complainant:
fifty-nine (59) days.
Friday, March 03, 2017, [also
approximately three (3) days later], I also received a separate
letter titled, “Notice Of Appearance For
Substitute, Additional, Or Amicus Counsel”, from an entity proclaiming to
be the Union’s Attorney; Stuart Lichten, Lichten & Bright, PC, 373 Park
Avenue South, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10016.
However, in contrast to the first
one, (referenced above), this particular letter indicated that they are making
an appearance for, “United Federation of
Teachers”. Also, in contrast to the first one, this particular letter
indicated, “Additional counsel (co-counsel
with: pro se)”. On this particular letter, the term “pro se” was typed on the line designated for & labeled “(name/firm)”.
This Letter Was Also Signed: Wednesday,
January 04, 2017,
However, In Contrast To The First One,
This Particular Letter Was
Postmarked Both: Wednesday, March 01,
2017 & Another Date Not So Legible –
fifty-six days later
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow
Regular Mail: Friday, March 03, 2017.
Total Days from Issuance to Complainant:
fifty-nine (59) days.
Tuesday, May 02, 2017, [approximately
sixty (60) days later], a letter titled, “More Critical Evidence, Humanize Mere Case Number & Request For
Current Status”, was mailed to the United Sates Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit since I had not receive any correspondence or feedback from the
Court for a long time,
[see letter, three (3) pages,
attached].
Friday, May 05, 2017, [approximately
three (3) days later], I received a letter from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In a mere one-page-four-sentence-paragraph,
the United States Court of Appeals argued the denial of my motions &
completely dismissed the case against the Union (Defendant).
The United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit never even required the Union
to officially respond to the complaints filed against them.
Letter Signed: Wednesday, May 03, 2017,
Postmarked: one (1) day later – Thursday,
May 04, 2017,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow
Regular Mail: one (1) day later – Friday, May 05, 2017.
Total Days from Issuance to Complainant:
two (2) days – The Fastest Response of
All. .
Tuesday, May 09, 2017, [approximately
four (4) days later], a letter titled, “Suppression of Indigent Litigation, Rational Basis In Law & Fact,
& Appeal Information Request”, was mailed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. Among other things, in this letter I requested,
from the United States Court of Appeals, guidance on how to go about appealing
their decision,
[see letter, two (2) pages,
attached].
Tuesday, May 30, 2017, [approximately
twenty-one (21) days later], I phoned the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals denied ever receiving my May 09, 2017 letter
titled, “Suppression of Indigent
Litigation, Rational Basis In Law & Fact, & Appeal Information Request”.
I was also informed, among other
things, by the Court of Appeals that the Court –
(A) Does not provide any forms to
file a motion for reconsideration,
(B) Does not provide information
on how to appeal a decision to the Supreme Court
besides merely providing the Supreme
Court’s telephone number, &
(C) That the Court of Appeals no
longer has a Pro Se Department.
Monday, June 05, 2017, [approximately
five (5) days later], a letter titled, “The Tuesday, May Ninth Correspondence Your Court Claims Never Received”
was mailed to the United States Court of Appeals. Attached to said letter I
included a copy of the May 09, 2017 letter titled, “Suppression of Indigent Litigation, Rational Basis In Law & Fact,
& Appeal Information Request”. The Court of Appeals confirmed that they
received this one and informed me that they had mailed me a letter replying to my
inquiries on this letter. To date I have not yet receive such a letter.
[see letter, two (2) pages, attached].
When you superimpose some of the back
and forth dynamics concerning only the Employment Discrimination & Abuse of
Power Complaints against the UFT/NYSUT Union, (referenced above), along with the back and forth dynamics concerning
the Employment Discrimination & Abuse of Power Complaints against the
Department of Education, (which is still
silently pending in the District Court) – all becomes even more difficult
to follow. Perhaps such is the intended goal; to repeal indigent litigation
& reserve Justice just for a selected few.
We Can & Must Do
Better For The Entire Human Race.
Such Paradigm Shift Begins
Within Education.
Thank you. Best Always
To All.
Special Thanks To All
of the Truly Incredible & Honorable
Judges & Court
House Employees
Whom Genuinely &
Consistently Strive To
Help Make This World a Better Place For
All.
Let’s
End Abuse of Power In Our Schools
Awareness Is Power So
Please Continue To Follow
Luis Ángel Pérez,
Degrees in Psychology & Education,
Mental Health, Social Service,
Public School Science & Mathematics,
Dual Language Middle School Seventh
& Eighth Grades,
Elementary School First & Fourth
Grades,
Educator & Advocate.
Yahoo Tumblr
Google Blogger
Youtube Writing4light
Email
