work”). As with Claims One and Four, however, the trouble with the Government’s position is that Vincent has clearly alleged that C.O. Stetson and C.O. Carter made verbal reference to his grievances. To deem this allegation "guess work” — and grant summary judgment on that basis — would, in practice, be nothing more than a determination of Vincent’s credibility. At this stage, that is precisely what this Court is supposed to avoid. See Jeffreys v. Rossi, 275 F.Supp.2d 463, 475 (S.D.N.Y.2003) ("It is axiomatic that courts should not assess credibility on summary judgment.”). 52 . Def. Mem. at 11. 53 . Id. at 12 (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992)). Accord Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 54 .Def. Mem. at 13. 55 . Barrington v. New
holding that frivolous actions should be dismissed so as to preserve scarce judicial resources holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well holding that a claim dismissed as malicious under the ifp statute should be with prejudice holding that for administrative orders as well as for judicial orders collateral attacks in defense of an enforcement action should be dismissed unless based on fraud holding contract with ambiguous terms should not be dismissed on pleadings