discussing the “special solicitude” courts are obligated to afford pro se litigants
How later courts described this case
- discussing the “special solicitude” courts are obligated to afford pro se litigants
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DORA I. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
-v.- 19 Civ. 6328 (KPF)
AUTOMATTIC INC.; BLUEHOST- ORDER
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL
GROUP; and TWITTER,
Defendants.
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of the document Plaintiff has captioned her Third
Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (Dkt. #43). This document does not fully address
the deficiencies identified previously by the Court, both orally and in writing.
However, the Court is cognizant of the liberality with which Plaintiff’s claims
must be viewed as a pro se litigant. See Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-
102 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing the “special solicitude” courts are obligated to
afford pro se litigants). Accordingly, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint (Dkt. #41), the TAC, and Plaintiff’s statements made
during the conference held on July 28, 2020 (see Dkt. #39 (transcript)), as the
operative pleading, which it will deem the Third Amended Complaint. Cf. Colon
v. City of New York, No. 16 Civ. 6425 (KPF), 2018 WL 740992, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 6, 2018) (discussing consideration of pro se plaintiff’s submissions in
connection with a motion to dismiss). The Court ORDERS Defendants to
advise the Court in writing, on or before November 13, 2020, as to whether
they wish to file an Answer or move to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 22, 2020
New York, New York Kathe ath. filo
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge