Williams v. United States of America (Department of Treasury)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, 19-CV-11547 (UA) -against- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ORDER (DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY), et al., Defendants.

COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Steven Talbert Williams brings this action pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on December 13, 2019, is 677 pages long, including exhibits. (ECF No. 2.) Each day since filing this action, Plaintiff has delivered several hundreds of pages of additional documents to the Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit for filing.1 But due to the volume of Plaintiff’s submissions, the Clerk of Court has not yet been able to scan and docket them.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s submissions and determined that it would be an undue burden for the Clerk’s Office to be required to scan and docket them at this time. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to maintain in the court file those documents that Plaintiff has submitted but that have not yet been scanned and docketed. The Clerk will not be required to scan and docket those documents unless otherwise directed by the Court.

1 Documents submitted by Plaintiff that have been docketed include a “letter rogatory to perpetuate testimony from Pershing Square Holdings Group, LLC (Guernsey)” (ECF No. 8); a notice of motion for “preliminary summary judgment for this action and for the trial of 18cv12064 (LLS) (SDNY) (due to such trial dismissed upon same grounds as would grant this matter a trial before jury after discovery)” (ECF No. 14); and a notice of motion “for a continuance, en banc, in favor of an extension of time to prepare, accumulate evidence, partake in administrative and/or other pretrial hearings, as well as coordinate with federal and local Government agencies associated to the revision of laws and a verified injunction ruling in favor of sanctions” (ECF No. 16).

The Court directs Plaintiff to limit any future filings in this action to ten pages unless he first recerves leave from the Court to exceed that limit. The Clerk will not be required to scan and docket any documents that exceed this page limit. Instead, the Clerk will note receipt of those documents, along with the fact that the ten-page limit was exceeded, on the docket and place the documents in the court file.

The Clerk of Court is further directed to note service on the docket.”

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2020 , New York, New York huh. Wk Chief United States District Judge ? Plaintiff has consented to receive electronic service of Court filings. (ECF No. 4.)