Rivera Peralta v. CK Greenhouse Inc.
| Zoila Angelica Rivera Peralta |
| CK Greenhouse Inc. |
| 3:2021cv01693 |
| December 20, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER. On December 22, 2021, the Court issued an Initial Review Order dismissing plaintiff's #1 Complaint, without prejudice, based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Doc. #7 . On that same date, the Court also denied plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, without prejudice. See Doc. #8. Both of these orders were mailed to plaintiff at her address of record. See Doc. #10. The Court permitted plaintiff until January 12, 2022, to file an Amended Complaint, if she wished to pursue her claims. See Doc. #7 . The Court cautioned: "If plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint by January 12, 2022, this case will be closed." Id.Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended Complaint. She also has not filed a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, or paid the required filing fee. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 1/14/2022. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 10
NOTICE. Copies of the Court's Initial Review Order and the accompanying docket text (Doc. #7 ), the Court's Orders entered on December 22, 2021 (Docs. #8, #9), and this Notice, have been mailed by court staff to the self-represented plaintiff at: 164 Norwich Ave., Colchester, CT 06415. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 12/22/2021. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER denying, without prejudice, #3 Motion to Appoint Counsel.Plaintiff seeks appointment of pro bono counsel in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. The Second Circuit has cautioned the district courts against the routine appointment of counsel and has reiterated the importance of requiring an indigent plaintiff to demonstrate the likely merit of her claims before counsel is appointed. See, e.g., Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care Ctr., 323 F.3d 196, 203-04 (2d Cir. 2003); Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 393 (2d Cir. 1997). Here, the current record consists only of plaintiff's Complaint, which the Court has dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. At this time, plaintiff is unable to demonstrate the likely merit of her claims. Therefore, plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. #3 ) is DENIED, without prejudice. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 12/22/2021. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER denying, without prejudice to re-filing, #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to proceed without payment of fees and costs, which motion includes a sworn statement as to plaintiff's current financial circumstances. See Doc. #2 . That sworn statement, however, is incomplete, leaving the Court unable to assess plaintiff's financial circumstances. Indeed, plaintiff has failed to provide any financial information. "The court may deny an application to proceed in forma pauperis if [the applicant] fails to submit the required financial information[.]" Whatley v. Astrue, No. 5:11CV1009(NAM)(ATB), 2011 WL 5222908, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 5196716 (Oct. 31, 2011); Schwarz v. I.R.S., 998 F. Supp. 201, 202 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (denying application to proceed in forma pauperis as incomplete where plaintiff failed to complete application). Accordingly, plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with her claims in this Court, plaintiff must re-file her motion or pay the required filing fee at the time she files any Amended Complaint. See Doc. #7 at 6. If plaintiff chooses to re-file her motion she must complete all of the required information, including her last salary received, any monthly obligations, any other sources of financial support, or any other information that is pertinent to her financial status. Plaintiff may indicate that her obligations are "$0" or that a particular question does not apply to her situation, but she may not leave significant sections of the affidavit form entirely blank. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 12/22/2021. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 7
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached Ruling, plaintiff's #1 Complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice. If plaintiff wishes to file an Amended Complaint, she may do so on or before January 12, 2022. If plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint by January 12, 2022, this case will be closed. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 12/22/2021. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 6
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 12/20/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 12/20/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 2/18/2022. Discovery due by 6/21/2022. Dispositive Motions due by 7/26/2022. Signed by Clerk on 12/20/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Zoila Angelica Rivera Peralta. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Zoila Angelica Rivera Peralta. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against CK Greenhouse Inc., filed by Zoila Angelica Rivera Peralta.(Fazekas, J.) |
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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Rivera Peralta v. CK Greenhouse Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Zoila Angelica Rivera Peralta | |
| 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: CK Greenhouse Inc. | |
| 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.
