Sanders-Peay v. New York City Department of Education et al
| Linda Sanders-Peay |
| New York City Department of Education, Parent Teacher Association District 16K021 and Crispus Attucks Elementary |
| 1:2020cv01115 |
| February 26, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Pamela K Chen |
| Vera M Scanlon |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER: Plaintiff not having filed an amended complaint within 30 days of the Court's 3/6/20 Memorandum and Order, the Court sua sponte extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to May 18, 2020. If none is filed by that date, the Court will assume that Plaintiff is not seeking to amend her complaint. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 4/17/2020. (Marks, Miriam)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff's claims against the PTA are dismissed for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). However, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint that states a claim against the PTA. In determining whether to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff should consider the legal requirements as to each of the statutory claims discussed above. If Plaintiff chooses to amend her complaint, the amended complaint must be captioned "AMENDED COMPLAINT" and bear the same docket number as this Order: 20-CV-01115 (PKC) (VMS). Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will replace her prior complaint. If Plaintiff fails to submit an amended complaint, or if the amended complaint does not comply with this Order, the PTA will be terminated from this action. Regardless of whether Plaintiff files an amended complaint, this matter shall proceed as to Defendant DOE. Plaintiff's request for pro bono counsel is denied without prejudice. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/6/2020. (Marks, Miriam)
|
|
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. (Bowens, Priscilla)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Linda Sanders-Peay. (Bowens, Priscilla)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against Crispus Attucks Elementary, New York City Department of Education, Parent Teacher Association District 16K021, filed by Linda Sanders-Peay. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit) (Bowens, Priscilla)
|
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.
