Lucio Celli v. New York City Department of Education, et al.

Issue: The issue is not Fed. Rul. of Civ. Pro. 8(a); the issue is the plaintiff was not allowed to be the "master of the complaint" and his rights under §35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. 1. Cole did not conduct Lucio's evaluation' under 8J of the CBA and the United Federation of Teacher did not process his grievance under 8J. The allegation of Cole's alleged racial animus is intertwined with the CBA and the Taylor Law. Hon. Cogan stated (Appendix D): The Taylor Law also has nothing to do with this case. Plaintiff was either discriminated against because he is white and/or disabled, or not. That is all there is to this case, and if plaintiff does not stick to the facts showing those claims and those facts only, the case is going to be dismissed. See Doc. No. 37 in the appendix and at 17. Hon. Cogan stated (Appendix D): "(There may be prohibitions in the collective bargaining agreement that prohibit these kinds of actions, but those can only be enforced by the union, and so have nothing to do with plaintiff's case.)" See Doc. No. 37 in the appendix and at 13. Questions: 1)Is Hon. Cogan allowed to be "master of Lucio's complaint"? 2) Can a judge threat a litigant with dismissal if the litigant did not take out the facts (enactment of administrative regulations) and laws that establishes a constitutional 1 Mandatory subject of negotiation under the Taylor Law.