Aragon v. Jane Doe 1 et al
Plaintiff: Rodolfo Aragon
Defendant: Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, OBCC and Rikers Island
Case Number: 1:2014cv09797
Filed: December 8, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: Queens
Presiding Judge: Loretta A. Preska
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 22, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 49 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: 44 MOTION to Dismiss 34 Amended Complaint and 43 Second Amended Complaint filed by City of New York: Rodolfo Aragon ("Plaintiff"), acting pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action again st the State of New York ("New York"), the City of New York ("City"), and the Department of Corrections and Correctional Supervision ("DOCCS", and collectively, "Defendants") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ( "Section 1983"). Plaintiff alleges that the conditions of his confinement at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center ("Bantum") amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff further claims fals e imprisonment as a result of an unlawful conviction in state court. The City brings the instant motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl.") and Second Amended Complaint ("Sec. Am. Compl.") pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth above, the City's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appe al from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 44, to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff, and to close the case. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 6/22/2017) (jwh)
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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Aragon v. Jane Doe 1 et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Rodolfo Aragon
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 ]
Defendant: Jane Doe 1
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 ]
Defendant: Jane Doe 2
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 ]
Defendant: OBCC
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 ]
Defendant: Rikers Island
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?