Aldrich v. Young

Aldrich v. Young

Plaintiff:	Robert Aldrich
Defendant:	William G. Young
Case Number:	1:2013cv10466
Filed:	March 1, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office:	Boston Office
County:	Suffolk
Presiding Judge:	Douglas P. Woodlock
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 7, 2013	Filing 32 Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: ORDER entered: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 28) is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 25). Although plaintiff has been permitted to procee d in forma pauperis in other cases filed in this Court and in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, this denial is based on my conclusion that any appeal of the dismissal of this action would not be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). With respect to the Motion to Appoint Appellate Counsel (Docket No. 29), I lack authority to appoint appellate counsel, and therefore plaintiff's motion is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the motion in the First Circuit. (PSSA, 1)
July 18, 2013	Filing 25 Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 9) is DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify and Discharge Assistant U.S. Attorney From Representing Defendant (Docket No. 10) is DE NIED; Plaintiff's Motion for Disqualification of the DOJ (Docket No. 17) is DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing on the Motion for Disqualification (Docket No. 18) is DENIED; and Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Final D isposition on Whether or Not the DOJ is Disqualified From Representing Defendant (Docket No. 19) is DENIED;6.Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply With Rules of Civil Procedure (Docket No. 11) is DENIED; 7.Plaintiffs req uest for a referral of his complaint to the Commission on Judicial Misconduct is DENIED; 8.Plaintiffs Motion Requesting to be Provided with Written Notice of All Electronic Filings as a Non ECF User (Docket No. 22) is DENIED;9.Defendants Motion to D ismiss (Docket No. 4) is ALLOWED as to all claims;10.This action is DISMISSED; and11.This Court hereby CERTIFIES that any appeal by the plaintiff of any of the rulings contained in this Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith. (PSSA, 1)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 7, 2013

Filing 32 Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: ORDER entered: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 28) is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 25). Although plaintiff has been permitted to procee d in forma pauperis in other cases filed in this Court and in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, this denial is based on my conclusion that any appeal of the dismissal of this action would not be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). With respect to the Motion to Appoint Appellate Counsel (Docket No. 29), I lack authority to appoint appellate counsel, and therefore plaintiff's motion is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the motion in the First Circuit. (PSSA, 1)

July 18, 2013

Filing 25 Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 9) is DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify and Discharge Assistant U.S. Attorney From Representing Defendant (Docket No. 10) is DE NIED; Plaintiff's Motion for Disqualification of the DOJ (Docket No. 17) is DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing on the Motion for Disqualification (Docket No. 18) is DENIED; and Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Final D isposition on Whether or Not the DOJ is Disqualified From Representing Defendant (Docket No. 19) is DENIED;6.Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply With Rules of Civil Procedure (Docket No. 11) is DENIED; 7.Plaintiffs req uest for a referral of his complaint to the Commission on Judicial Misconduct is DENIED; 8.Plaintiffs Motion Requesting to be Provided with Written Notice of All Electronic Filings as a Non ECF User (Docket No. 22) is DENIED;9.Defendants Motion to D ismiss (Docket No. 4) is ALLOWED as to all claims;10.This action is DISMISSED; and11.This Court hereby CERTIFIES that any appeal by the plaintiff of any of the rulings contained in this Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith. (PSSA, 1)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Aldrich v. Young
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: William G. Young
Represented By:	George B. Henderson, III
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Robert Aldrich
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?