POURSAIED v. EEOC et al
| SHAHNAZ POURSAIED |
| EEOC and CONSTANGY BROOKS & SMITH , LLP |
| 1:2015cv00548 |
| July 10, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Forsyth |
| THOMAS D. SCHROEDER |
| JOE L. WEBSTER |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 11/13/2015; that Defendant Constangy's motion to dismiss (Doc. 6 ) is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant EEOC's motion to dismiss (Doc. 15 ) is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED t hat Poursaied's complaint (Doc. 1 ) is DISMISSED. The dismissal is with prejudice as to all claims except the claim under the Privacy Act against the EEOC, which is dismissed without prejudice. A judgment dismissing this action will be enter ed contemporaneously with this Memorandum Order. A word of caution is in order. Poursaied is proceeding pro se, and the court has considered her non-lawyer status. However, Poursaied is not entitled to be relieved of the applicable legal standards, rules of procedure, or deadlines. See Alston v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. 1:12CV452, 2014 WL 338804, at *3 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2014) ("[P]ro se litigants are not entitled to a general dispensation from the rules of procedure or court-imposed deadlines."). This includes Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that those who sign and file materials with the court are, by doing so, representing that "the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law" and that "the factual contentions have evidentiary support." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (b). A violation of Rule 11 is subject to sanctions, and "[t]here is... no doubt that pro se litigants are subject to any and all appropriate sanctions for their misconduct." Zaczek v. Fauquier Cnty., 764 F. Supp. 1071, 1077 (E.D. Va. 1991). This includes pro se litigants who file frivolous or repetitive lawsuits. Id. at n.21. Here, Poursaied raised nearly two dozen arguments in favor of her complaint, most of which are either clearly inapplicable to her s ituation or based on extralegal authority. (See Doc. 18 at 47 (complaining of violations of the Fourth Amendment, the "doctrine of moral rights," "breech [sic] of trust," and actions contrary to the policy goals of the National Alliance on Mental Illness).) Poursaied has also acknowledged that she alleged at least one cause of action without performing any research and despite knowing that no basis existed for such a claim. (See Doc. 18 at 11.) Finally, Poursa ied admits that she filed this action for the sole purpose of re-litigating arguments that were addressed and rejected by Magistrate Judge Webster in the WFUBMC action. (Doc. 1 at 3; Doc. 34 in case No. 1:14CV784, at 1.) Poursaied is cautione d that her filings reflect frivolous and repetitive attempts to obtain relief, and she is encouraged to consult legal counsel before she proceeds further. Any further frivolous arguments or claims will be subject to sanctions, including monetary sanctions. (Garland, Leah)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
