Gilot v. 63 Police Department et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
FARRAH GILOT,
Plaintiff,
- against -
63 POLICE DEPARTMENT and FDNY,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------x
DISMISSAL &
FILING INJUNCTION ORDER
26-CV-4565 (PKC) (PK)
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Farrah Gilot, proceeding pro se, filed this action on July 29, 2026. By
Memorandum & Order dated August 31, 2026, the Court sua sponte dismissed the case as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim, granted Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint,
and ordered Plaintiff to show cause by the same date why the Court should not impose a filing
injunction against her. (See Mem. & Order, Dkt. 6, at 1.)1 Plaintiff has done neither.
DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION
Since Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline, the Court
dismisses the case without prejudice and directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close
this case. (See id. at 9 (stating that the Court would take these actions if Plaintiff did not amend
or request an extension of time by the deadline).)
FILING INJUNCTION
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to adequately show cause why a filing injunction should
not be issued against her. The Court finds that Plaintiff is likely to continue to waste the Court’s
resources by frequently filing frivolous actions, and that these actions by Plaintiff have already
1 The Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. (See Mem. & Order, Dkt. 6.)
Case 1:26-cv-04565-PKC-PK Document 7 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
and will continue to detract from the Court’s ability to attend to the legally cognizable cases the
Court has before it. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum & Order,
(see id. at 6–9), Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any future actions in the Eastern District of New
York without first obtaining leave of the Court. To eliminate the need to write a decision every
time Plaintiff makes a frivolous filing (because that would largely defeat the purpose of the
injunction), the injunction shall be implemented as follows. First, the Clerk of Court is directed
to open a miscellaneous case entitled “In re Farrah Gilot,” and to file a copy of this Filing
Injunction Order under that docket number. The matter is then to be administratively closed.
Any filings by Plaintiff shall be filed only under that miscellaneous docket number. The Court
will review each filing to determine whether it is frivolous or fails to state a claim. In either
situation, no further action will be taken. If it states a claim, the Court will direct the Clerk of
Court to open a new civil matter in which those documents will be filed, and it will proceed as a
new case in the ordinary course.
Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit Plaintiff from filing an appeal of this Order.
However, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from either the
dismissal of this action or the Court’s filing injunction would not be taken in good faith and
therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v.
United States, 269 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge
Dated: October 9, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-04565-PKC-PK Document 7 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>