Kneitel v. Camilo et al
| Michael J. Kneitel |
| Commissioner Lisette Camilo, The City of New York, New York City Department of Administrative Services, Director Katrina Porter, John Doe, Jane Doe and Michael Reyes |
| 1:2022cv01175 |
| March 1, 2022 |
| U.S. 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 March 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Case transferred from New York Eastern has been opened in Southern District of New York as case 1:22-cv-02047, filed 03/11/2022. (Lee, Tiffeny) |
ORDER: Plaintiff Michael J. Kneitel brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of due process and equal protection. (See generally Complaint, Dkt. 1.). All named defendants are located in New York County and Plaintiff's complaint describes events that are alleged to have occurred in New York County. The Southern District of New York would unquestionably be an appropriate venue for Plaintiff's claims, see 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2), and likely the most convenient venue for the parties and any witnesses. A district court may transfer an action filed in the wrong district court, "to any district... in which it could have been brought," 28 U.S.C. 1406(a), "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice." 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 28 U.S.C. 112(b); 1406(a). While Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 or paid the requisite filing fee, the Court reserves these issues to the transferee court. The Court offers no opinion on the merits of the action. The Court notes that Plaintiff previously filed an identical complaint in this court against the same defendants, which was dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to file a Long IFP application as directed. See Kneitel v. Camilo, No. 19-CV-5972 (PKC) (LB). The provision of Local Rule 83.1 that requires a seven-day stay is hereby waived. Summonses shall not issue from this Court and the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case closed. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/11/2022. (Gonzalez, Fida)
|
| Case electronically transferred to the Southern District of New York. ALL FILINGS ARE TO BE MADE IN THE TRANSFER COURT, DO NOT DOCKET TO THIS CASE. (Gonzalez, Fida) |
| Filing 2 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 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Michael J. Kneitel. (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 U.S. 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.
