Fernando v. Kristensen
| Arjuna C. Fernando |
| Annette Kristensen |
| 1:2020cv04930 |
| October 13, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brian M Cogan |
| Steven M Gold |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 30, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Arjuna C. Fernando, plaintiff pro se. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits) (Guzzi, Roseann) |
Filing 10
ORDER re #8 Letter requesting permission to electronic access Denied. First, this case is over. Judgment has been entered, and the only remaining issue before the Court is whether plaintiff should be enjoined from further filings without court permission. Those filings should not be so extensive that plaintiff cannot mail them to the Clerk for processing. Second, plaintiff's history of frivolous filings in this Court and others compels the conclusion that electronic access would be ill-advised. ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 10/26/2020 ) c/m to plaintiff. (Guzzi, Roseann)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER granting plaintiff's #7 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Order to Show Cause to 11/30/20. The Court notes, however, that plaintiff's description of the Berg decision appears immaterial to whether plaintiff should be enjoined from further filings in this Court. Responses due by 11/30/2020. ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 10/26/2020 ) c/m to plaintiff (Guzzi, Roseann)
|
| Filing 8 Letter/Motion dated 10/25/20 for permission for electronic access notifications. *Please note: Instructions and consent to electronic service form will be mailed to plaintiff Arjuna C. Fernando, Pro se. (Guzzi, Roseann) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply requesting until 11/30/20 to responsd to the Court's Order to Show Cause by Arjuna C. Fernando. (Guzzi, Roseann) |
| Filing 6 CLERK'S JUDGMENT dated 10/19/20 that the complaint is dismissed as frivolous; that leave to amend is denied; that Plaintiff is directed to show cause by written affirmation, within 20 days of the date of this decision, why he should not be barred from filing future complaints in this district without leave of the Court; that pursuant to 28:1915(a)(3), any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith; and that in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). ( Ordered by Jalitza Poveda, Deputy Clerk on behalf of Douglas C. Palmer, Clerk of Court on 10/19/2020 ) c/m to plaintiff w/appeals pkg. (Guzzi, Roseann) |
|
Filing 5
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE dated 10/16/20 that the complaint is dismissed as frivolous. Because plaintiff's claims are based on an indisputably meritless theory that cannot be cured by amendment, plaintiff is denied leave to amend. Plaintiff is directed to show cause by written affirmation, within 20 days of the date of this decision, why he should not be barred from filing future complaints in this district without leave of the Court. Although plaintiff has paid the filing fee to commence this action, the Court certifies pursuant to 28:1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 10/16/2020 ) *Forwarded for judgment and for mailing. (Guzzi, Roseann)
|
| Filing 4 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 3 Summons Issued as to Annette Kristensen. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 2 FILING FEE: $ 400.00, receipt number 4653152747 (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Annette Kristensen, filed by Arjuna C. Fernando. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (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
| Search for this case: Fernando v. Kristensen | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Arjuna C. Fernando | |
| 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: Annette Kristensen | |
| 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.
