Martin v. Amtrak Rail Service:City of New York/Administrative Criminal Court

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Martin v. Amtrak Rail Service:City of New York/Administrative Criminal Court

Martin v. Amtrak Rail Service:City of New York/Administrative Criminal Court

Plaintiff:	Carl Martin
Defendant:	Amtrak Rail Service: City of New York/Administrative Criminal Court
Case Number:	1:2013cv00473
Filed:	January 25, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Brian M. Cogan
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
June 13, 2013	Filing 12 Order. The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the amended complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)( 3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S. Ct. 917 (1962). Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 6/13/2013. Forwarded for judgment. C/M by chambers. (Siegfried, Evan)
February 12, 2013	Filing 4 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court will grant plaintiff 20 days from the date of this Order to revise his complaint to correct the deficiencies noted. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 20 days, the instant action shall be dismissed without p rejudice. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 2/11/2013. (Siegfried, Evan) (Main Document 4 replaced on 2/12/2013) (Siegfried, Evan).

Date Filed

Document Text

June 13, 2013

Filing 12 Order. The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the amended complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)( 3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S. Ct. 917 (1962). Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 6/13/2013. Forwarded for judgment. C/M by chambers. (Siegfried, Evan)

February 12, 2013

Filing 4 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court will grant plaintiff 20 days from the date of this Order to revise his complaint to correct the deficiencies noted. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 20 days, the instant action shall be dismissed without p rejudice. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 2/11/2013. (Siegfried, Evan) (Main Document 4 replaced on 2/12/2013) (Siegfried, Evan).

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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Martin v. Amtrak Rail Service:City of New York/Administrative Criminal Court
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Carl Martin
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: Amtrak Rail Service: City of New York/Administrative Criminal Court
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?