Respondent Colistra asserts that he was not reviewing petitioner's notes. Additionally, respondents urge that the petition be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Further, they seek dismissal on the basis that I lack jurisdiction to review this matter, as it involves alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Law. The petition, as drafted, appears to challenge the district's failure to find that respondent Colistra violated his rights. In addition, petitioner requests the superintendent's rehabilitation for violating petitioner's right to privacy and his rights under the Freedom of Information Law.
Petitioner offers no legal basis to grant such relief.
Since October 1991, petitioner has filed nine appeals before me, eight of which were dismissed. Since petitioner's pursuits, for the most part, are baseless and serve only to slow down a system designed to offer a forum for individuals who seek redress, petitioner is urged seriously to consider whether his claims have merit before he initiates another appeal. To do otherwise is not only costly and unnecessarily time consuming, it inevitably creates delays in the decision-making process for others with meritorious claims.