ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

January 22, 2024

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a) requires all appellants to provide the court with a clear statement of the issues on appeal in their briefs

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,* sued the school district where he previously work as well as certain administrators and another former colleague [collectively Defendants] for alleged discrimination and retaliation on the basis of race, gender, age, and disability status under various federal statutes. A federal district court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims as barred by a general release in a settlement agreement and as time barred. Plaintiff filed a timely appeal with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Plaintiff, however, did not challenge these federal district court’s rulings in the brief he submitted to the Circuit Court. Rather, observed the Circuit Court, Plaintiff "focused solely on the merits of his underlying claims", alleged acts of unlawful discrimination and retaliation undertaken by the Defendants. In the words of the Circuit Court, Plaintiff "does not dispute that his claims were precluded and time barred".

The Circuit Court affirmed the district court's ruling, explaining it liberally construes pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants to raise the strongest arguments they suggest. However, said the court, pro se appellants must still comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a), which requires all appellants “to provide the court with a clear statement of the issues on appeal” in their briefs.

Plaintiff had conceded the procedural issues that resulted in the dismissal of his complaints by the federal district court and he could not advance the merits of his "underlying claims" in the brief he submitted to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

* Pro se [Latin] meaning for or on one's own behalf.

Click HERE to access the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeal posted on the Internet.

 

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com