UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------x ELIZABETH MARY GRANT,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 25-CV-01635 (PKC) (JRC) -against-

CAMINO, Queens Supreme Court Judge, et al.,

Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------x PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge. Pro se Plaintiff Elizabeth Grant, currently incarcerated at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, filed the instant action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“Southern District”) on March 10, 2025. (Comp., Dkt. 1.) The Southern District transferred the action to this Court on March 25, 2025. (Case Transfer, Dkt. 4.) On April 14, 2025, the Court received Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) along with a Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) authorization form. (Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP, Dkt. 7; PLRA, Dkt. 8.) The Court grants Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP for the limited purpose of this Order. For the reasons stated below, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this action and file the related documents in the miscellaneous action In Re: Elizabeth Grant, No. 24-mc-04080 (PKC). FILING INJUNCTION Plaintiff is enjoined from filing IFP actions in the Eastern District of New York without first obtaining leave from the Court. See Grant v. NY Presbyterian et al., No. 24-CV-6327 (PKC) (LB),

(E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2024).1 The filing injunction was implemented to

1 Plaintiff has filed nineteen actions in the Court since 2019. See Grant v. Warden of Rose M. Singer, No. 19-CV-2046 (RRM) (LB); Grant v. Cafferri, No. 19-CV-2148 (RRM) (LB); Grant “eliminate the need to write a decision every time [Plaintiff] makes a frivolous filing.” Id. at *2. In accordance with the injunction, any filing by Plaintiff “shall be filed only under […] docket number [No. 24-mc-04080 (PKC)],” and reviewed by the Court to “determine whether it is frivolous or fails to state a claim.” Id. For any such claim, no further action will be taken and the

case will be “administratively closed.” Id. This filing injunction applies to all filings by Plaintiff that are docketed in this Court, including any filings that were originally filed in a different court and transferred to this Court, such as the instant action. See Cunningham v. Silverstein Props.- Inc., No. 24-CV-2342 (LTS),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2024) (dismissing case for failing to adhere to the terms of a prior filing injunction in the Southern District, though case was filed in federal court in New Jersey and transferred to the Southern District); see also In re Guillory, No. 5:21-PF-0005 (GTS),

, at *2, n.2 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2021) (collecting cases nationwide where filing injunctions were applied to cases transferred or removed to the venue with the filing injunction). ORDER

Having reviewed the complaint, which is directed at state court officers and Plaintiff’s attorneys who allegedly participated in her fitness examination under New York Civil Procedural Code § 730.10, the Court finds that it fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and

v. Vultreggo, No. 19-CV-2204 (RRM) (LB); Grant v. ASPCA, No. 19-CV-2239 (RRM) (LB); Grant v. Soba, No. 19-CV-2525 (RRM) (LB); Grant v. Zao, No. 19-CV-2832 (RRM) (LB); Grant v. Resan, No. 19-CV-2911 (RRM) (LB); Grant v. Queens Supreme Ct., No. 19-CV-3244 (RRM) (LB); Grant v. Dep’t of Corrs., No. 19-CV-3380 (RRM) (LB); Grant v. ASPCA, No. 19-CV-3689 (RRM) (LB); Grant v. Brooklyn Veterans Hosp., No. 19-CV-4875 (RRM) (LB); Grant v. Cheena, No. 19-CV-4876 (RRM) (LB); Grant v. Tracy, No. 19-CV-6081 (RRM) (LB); Grant v. Adult Protective Serv., No. 22-CV-775 (PKC) (LB); Grant v. 115 Precinct, No. 24-CV-3714 (PKC) (LB); Grant v. 115th Precinct, No. 24-CV-4183 (PKC) (LB); Grant v. 115th Precinct et al., No. 25-cv-1664 (PKC) (JRC); and the instant action, Grant v. Camino et al., No. 25-cv-1635 (PKC) (JRC). 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s complaint, her request to proceed IFP, and the PLRA authorization form (Dkts. 1, 7, 8), as well as this order, in the miscellaneous action In Re: Elizabeth Grant, No. 24-mc-04080 (PKC) and close this case. The Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3), that any appeal 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,

, 444–45 (1962). SO ORDERED. /s/ Pamela K. Chen Pamela K. Chen United States District Judge Dated: April 30, 2025 Brooklyn, New York