Muhammad v. Duffy et al
| Mr. Prince Muhammad |
| Warden Edmund Duffy and Warden Gumusdere |
| 1:2015cv02945 |
| August 31, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Kiyo A. Matsumoto |
| James Orenstein |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER [DISMISSING CASE]: Plaintiff's 2 request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is granted for the limited purpose of this Order. The Complaint is nearly identical to prior compl aints plaintiff filed against Wardens Edmund Duffy and Turhan Gumusdere, the former and current wardens of the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. Plaintiff's claims related to his property at Rikers Island remain pending in Muhammad v. New York City, No. 15-CV-3401. As no useful purpose would be served by the filing and litigation of this duplicate action, the instant complaint is dismissed without prejudice to the litigation pending under Docket Number 15-CV-3401. The cour t certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. SO ORDERED by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto, on 9/10/2015. C/mailed. (Forwarded for Judgment.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
|
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 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.
