at this early stage in the litigation. Accordingly, Defs) DOCUMENT is DENIED without prejudice to refile at a later date. ae ELECTRONICALLY FILED rk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the CAD ade. Jn . : Ne DOC #: at ECF No. 12. The Clerk of Court is further directed to Ae oa (3 of this Endorsement to pro se Plf. at his address listed i aa | DATE FILED: _ 12/29/2022 _ and to show service on the docket. A sees, SO ORDERED: ae STATE OF NEW YORK December 29, 2022 af OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Plains, NY UNITED ATES DIST HOOT JUDGE LETITIA JAMES Division of ReGionat Orrices □ AtrorNey GENERAL Westcnester Recionar Orrice December [3, 2022 Via Facsimile (914) 390-4179 Hon. Nelson $. Roman, U.S.D.J. U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. 300 Quarropas Street, Room 275 White Plains, New York 10601 Re: Jude v. New York State Office of Mental Health, No. 22-CV-07441 (NSR) Response to Valentin Order and Request that Plaintiff Be Directed to Show Cause Why His Jn Forma Pauperis Status Should Not Be Revoked Dear Judge Roman: I write, on behalf of the New York State Office of Mental Health, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Sullivan, Dill, Savage, Annucci, Hilton, McKoy, Bennett, Jordan, and Moores (collectively, “Represented Defendants”), with two purposes. First, in accordance with the Court’s Valentin Order, I write to provide the name and service address of the individual identified in the Complaint as “Morrow.” (See Doc. 7 at 2-3). Based upon the information available to this office, it appears Plaintiff intends to proceed against Commissioner’s Hearing Officer Virginia Morrow. CHO Morrow may be served at the following address: New York State Dep’t of Corrs. and Cmty. Supervision Office of Counsel The Harriman State Campus, Building 4 1120 Washington Avenue Albany, New York 12226 Second, although Represented Defendants’ time to respond to the Complaint does not expire for approximately 60 days—and Plaintiff, having been provided with CHO Morrow’s name and service address, must now file and serve an Amended Complaint in any event—they request that Plaintiff be directed to show cause as to why his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status should not be revoked.' The basis for this request is straightforward. ' Every Represented Defendant provided an executed Statement of Service by Mai! and Acknowledgment of Receipt by Mail of Summons and Complaint to the U.S. Marshals Service by e-mail on December 9, 2022. Their time to respond to the Complaint has, therefore, been extended to and including February 7. 2023. 44 SOUTH BROADWAY, WHITE PLAINS, NY 10601 @ PHONE (914) 422-8755 @ Fax (914) 422-8706 @ WwwWW.AG.NY.GOV The Prison Litigation Reform Act (‘PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), governs this suit. Congress enacted the PLRA “with the principal purpose of deterring frivolous prisoner lawsuits and appeals.” Tafari v. Hues, 473 F.3d 440, 443 (2d. Cir. 2007). Bearing this goal in mind, the PLRA instructs, in pertinent part, as follows: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained . . . brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This “three-strikes” rule “forc[es incarcerated individuals] to go through the same thought process non-inmates go through before filing a suit, 1.€., is filing this suit worth the costs?” Tafari, 473 F.3d at 443 (quoting Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff, in light of the following decisions, can no longer proceed IFP as a matter of course: 1, Jude v. City of New York, No. 17-CV-08735 (S.D.N.Y.): Judge Stanton, in an August 27, 2018 Order of Dismissal, dismissed that action under “28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because the doctrine of res judicata bar[red] his claims.” (Ex. A at 9); 2. Jude v. City of New York, No. 17-CV-05893 (S.D.N.Y.): Judge McMahon, in a September 8, 2017 Order of Dismissal, dismissed that action under “28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because claim preclusion bar[red] his claims.” (Ex. B at 6); and 3. Jude v. New York State, No. 07-CV-05890 (S.D.N.Y.): then-District Judge Sullivan, in a March 30, 2009 Memorandum and Order, dismissed that action, concluding that “with respect to all of his claims, Plaintiff... failed to state a... claim upon which relief can be granted.” (Ex. C at 12).? While the question of Plaintiff's IFP status may be raised in motion practice at a later stage, addressing the issue now will best serve the twin goals of preserving judicial resources and effective case management. Plaintiff—who is presently incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility in Seneca County (i.e., the Western District of New York)—should, therefore, be directed to show cause why his IFP status should not be revoked (i.e., how the statutory exception applies to this case) before the Court, Represented Defendants, or any other individual or entity expends any additional resources on this matter. Respectfully submitted, fegel Bune Qu George P. Burns, Jr. Assistant Attorney General (914) 422-8765 George.Burns@ag.ny.gov cc: Plaintiff, pro se (via First Class Mail) ? Each decision quoted is, for the Court’s convenience, annexed hereto.