Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Lenora KINCHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paulette GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellee.


Decided: December 09, 2020

PRESENT: DENNY CHIN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Lenora Kinchen, pro se, Rye, New York. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Barbara A. Gross, Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York, New York.


Plaintiff-appellant Lenora Kinchen, proceeding pro se, sued her former employer, Saint John's University, and several coworkers, asserting claims under federal and state law, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., and the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. She then filed a second lawsuit -- the subject of this appeal -- against her coworker defendant-appellee Paulette Gonzalez, who was also a defendant in the first action. The complaints were substantively identical. The district court dismissed the first action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim, and the second as duplicative of the first. The district court granted Kinchen two opportunities to amend, but she declined to amend, and instead twice moved for the district judge's recusal. The district court denied the motions and eventually dismissed both actions. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

In a separate summary order filed today, see Kinchen v. St. John's Univ., 19-2818-cv, we affirm the dismissal of Kinchen's complaint in the first action. As the second action against Gonzalez was substantively identical to the first, we affirm for substantially the same reasons. Kinchen waived most of her claims by failing to brief them. And her contention that the district court was biased and should have recused is meritless.

We have considered Kinchen's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Kinchen's pending motion to strike defendant-appellee's brief and appendix is DENIED.

Copied to clipboard