Hanif v. Windsor et al
| Asim A. Hanif |
| Town of Windsor and Dattco |
| 3:2022cv00060 |
| January 13, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Robert A Richardson |
| Omar A Williams |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 10, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Set Deadlines: Filing fee due 4/4/2022 or Dismissal. (Perez, J.) |
Filing 9
ORDER denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. In the absence of any objection from Plaintiff, the court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Richardson's recommended ruling (ECF No. #8 ) on Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. #2 . Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed without payment of fees and costs. Plaintiff's financial affidavit does not demonstrate that he is "unable to pay" the filing fee required by the court. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff's financial affidavit indicates that that he has a checking account containing $938.13, and a savings account containing $10,000. In addition, Plaintiff receives a weekly income of $703.30, and $1,360.00 per month in social security benefits. Plaintiff's total monthly obligations are $2,749.00. Plaintiff's income and savings demonstrate that he is able to pay the fee without hampering his abilities to obtain the necessities of life or force him to abandon the action. See Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. All further proceedings in this matter shall be held in abeyance for thirty (30) days pending Plaintiff's delivery of the filing fee in the amount of $402.00 (cash, money order, or bank check made payable to the Clerk of Court) to the Clerk's Office within thirty (30) days of this order. Failure to tender the filing fee within thirty days of this order will result in the dismissal of this action. After Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, he shall be permitted to proceed with the claims asserted in his complaint. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williamson 3/4/2022. (Mamillapalli, S.).
|
| Filing 8 RECOMMENDED RULING recommending that #2 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. See attached ruling, 4 Pages. Objections due by 3/2/2022. Signed by Judge Robert A. Richardson on 2/16/2022. (Fries, J.) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert A. Richardson for ruling on #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and for initial review of the Complaint #1 pursuant to 28 USC 1915. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 2/11/2022.(Perez, J.)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE RE: INITIAL DISCOVERY PROTOCOLS Signed by Clerk on 01/13/2022. (Attachments: #1 Initial Discovery Protocols Attachment)(Fazekas, J.) |
|
Filing 5
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 01/13/2022.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 01/13/2022.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 3/14/2022. Discovery due by 7/15/2022. Dispositive Motions due by 8/19/2022. Signed by Clerk on 01/13/2022.(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Asim A. Hanif. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Dattco, Town of Windsor, filed by Asim A. Hanif. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(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
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.
