Kneitel v. Rose et al
| Michael J. Kneitel |
| Jane Doe, The City of New York, John Doe, James P. O'Neill, Gary H. Rose and Kenneth Quick |
| 1:2019cv03742 |
| July 1, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Lois Bloom |
| Pamela K Chen |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 13, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached, the Court dismisses all claims against all Defendants. However, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to submit an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order alleging a Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure of his vehicle. So long as Plaintiff has a legitimate basis for doing so, the Court recommends that Plaintiff (1) only name Gary H. Rose and the City of New York as Defendants; (2) allege facts demonstrating that Gary H. Rose confiscated and/or vandalized Plaintiff's vehicle pursuant to a municipal policy; (3) refrain from arguing that the New York City Police Department had an affirmative obligation arising under the Constitution to investigate the theft of Plaintiff's vehicle; and (4) allege more facts to substantiate his claim of unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, which requires Plaintiff to demonstrate that Defendant Gary H. Rose was "personally involved in authorizing the unconstitutional seizure of [P]laintiffs car," Rackley v. City of New York, 186 F. Supp. 2d 466, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). The Court advises Plaintiff that the amended complaint will replace the original complaint, must be captioned "Amended Complaint," and shall bear the same docket number as this Order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with the deadline will result in this action being dismissed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 8/13/2019. (Nadig, Alok)
|
| Filing 3 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Michael J. Kneitel. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Jane Doe, John Doe, James P. O'Neill, Kenneth Quick, Gary H. Rose, filed by Michael J. Kneitel. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Davis, Kimberly) |
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 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.
