Opinion
7:22-cv-06039-NSR
08-30-2022
DeLeon et al v. Dunaway et al,
MEMORANDUM ENDORSEMENT
Nelson S. Roman, Judge.
The Court is in receipt of the attached moving papers from pro se Defendant Douglas Dunaway, filed August 29, 2022, seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint on several bases. The Court is also in receipt of the attached letter from pro se Defendant Douglas Dunaway, dated August 26, 2022, but entered August 29, 2022, with a suggestion of death under FRCP 25 of his wife and named co-defendant Maria Louise Dunaway.
With respect to the filed moving papers, the Court recognizes that “pro se litigants may in general deserve more lenient treatment than those represented by counsel.” McDonald v. Head Criminal Court Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir. 1988). However, that a party proceeds pro se “does not exempt [the] party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES pro se Defendant Douglas Dunaway's motion to dismiss without prejudice with leave to refile for failure to follow this Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. See Sec. 3.A.ii (“A pre-motion conference with the Court is required before making any other motion . . . . To arrange a pre-motion conference, the moving party shall submit a letter, not to exceed three pages, setting forth the basis for the anticipated motion. The opposing party shall submit a letter, also not to exceed three pages, setting forth its position within three business days from the service of the moving party's letter. If a premotion conference is requested in connection with a proposed motion to dismiss, the request will stay the deadline for the requesting party to move or answer, and a new deadline will be set at the conference.”).
Available at: https://www nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-nelson-s-roman.
Additionally, the Court REMINDS pro se Defendant Douglas Dunaway, as it did in its endorsement issued yesterday (see ECF No. 20), that he may only make filings on his own behalf and not on behalf of his other pro se co-Defendants, as he did in his motion to dismiss. See In re Texaco Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litig., 123 F.Supp.2d 169, 172 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“It is well-established . . . that th[e] right to proceed pro se does not encompass the right to proceed pro se on behalf of the interests of another.” (citing cases)). Again, if the pro se Defendants in this case wish to make a joint request, they must expressly note it as such in the applicable filing and each pro se Defendant must sign the applicable filing.
And with respect to the filed suggestion of death, in view thereof, the Court hereby STAYS this action for 90 days, or November 28, 2022. The Court directs the parties to FRCP 25(a)(1), which provides that “[a] motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent's successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days of service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.” 1
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 21, mail a copy of this memorandum endorsement to pro se Defendants Douglas and Michael Dunaway's at their address on 4 Staub Court, Mamaroneck, NY 10543, and show service on the docket.
SO ORDERED. 2