Li v. Borsato

Li v. Borsato

Plaintiff:	Xulan Li
Defendant:	Borsato
Case Number:	1:2016cv02798
Filed:	May 31, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Carol Bagley Amon
Presiding Judge:	James Orenstein
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
December 30, 2016	Filing 4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Whereas ordinarily the Court would allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint, see Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 597-98 (2d Cir. 2000 ), it need not afford that opportunity here where it is clear from plaintiffs submission that any attempt to amend the complaint would be futile. See Ashmore v. Prus, 510 Fed. Appx. 47, 49 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that granting leave to amend would be futile where "barriers to relief... cannot be surmounted by reframing the complaint"); see also Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (denying leave to amend a pro se complaint where amendment would be futile). The Court cer tifies 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 the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 12/29/2016. (fwd for judgment) (Fernandez, Erica)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 30, 2016

Filing 4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Whereas ordinarily the Court would allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint, see Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 597-98 (2d Cir. 2000 ), it need not afford that opportunity here where it is clear from plaintiffs submission that any attempt to amend the complaint would be futile. See Ashmore v. Prus, 510 Fed. Appx. 47, 49 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that granting leave to amend would be futile where "barriers to relief... cannot be surmounted by reframing the complaint"); see also Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (denying leave to amend a pro se complaint where amendment would be futile). The Court cer tifies 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 the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 12/29/2016. (fwd for judgment) (Fernandez, Erica)

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: Li v. Borsato
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Borsato
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 ]
Plaintiff: Xulan Li
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?