Carter v. The City of New York
| Vingal Carter |
| Con Edison, The City of New York and New York Police Department |
| 1:2022cv02440 |
| April 25, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Lois Bloom |
| LaShann DeArcy Hall |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT against The City of New York, New York Police Department, filed by Vingal Carter. (Layne, Monique) |
Filing 5
ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's request #2 to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days from the entry of this Memorandum and Order. Should Plaintiff elect to file an amended complaint, he must allege facts that support the elements of the claim and identify defendants who personally violated his constitutional rights while acting under color of state law. Plaintiff must provide facts sufficient to allow each defendant to have a fair understanding of what Plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery. The amended complaint must be captioned as an "Amended Complaint," and bear the docket number 22-CV-02440 (LDH)(LB). Any amended complaint will replace the original complaint and must stand on its own without reference to the original complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days will result in dismissal of this case. No summons shall issue at this time and all further proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days or until further order of the Court. 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. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se litigant. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 5/24/2022. (Williams, Erica) Modified on 5/26/2022 (Williams, Erica).
|
| 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. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF DEFICIENT FILING, litigant notified of deficiency(s) that must be corrected within fourteen (14) days. Mailed out on 4/29/2022 (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Vingal Carter. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Con Edison, filed by Vingal Carter. (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.
