Xu v. NYS Department of State Division of Licensing Services Security Guard
| Junsai Xu |
| NYS Department of State Division of Licensing Services Security Guard |
| 1:2022cv03980 |
| July 7, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Pamela K Chen |
| Cheryl L Pollak |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 NOTICE: Copy of Email exchange between Junsai Xu, plaintiff pro se and NYS Department of State Division of Licensing Services. (Guzzi, Roseann) |
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the #7 Letter, which is hard to decipher. Plaintiff asks the "Federal Supreme Court" to subpoena "[G]oogle," based on "felon[ies] against humanity" and "violation[s] of the Fourth Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution. (Dkt. 7, at 1.) Google allegedly committed the foregoing upon announcing that it would "delete the [sic] location data showing when users visit abortion clinics" in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022). (Id.) Plaintiff further argues that "[G]oogle... deserves to die, [because it] committed cyber crimes" and appears to suggest that Google is acting in league with former President Trump. (Id. at 2.) Although pro se "pleadings must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest," Best v. DiTech Holding Corp., 407 F. Supp. 3d 210, 211 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (citations and quotations omitted), the Court may dismiss pleadings that are "so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that [their] true substance, if any, is well disguised." Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Having repeatedly and carefully read the Letter, the Court cannot discern any allegation that Google--which is not a party to this case--has harmed Plaintiff in any way, and cannot articulate the exact relief that Plaintiff seeks. See Browne v. N.Y.S. Ct. Sys., 599 F. Supp. 36, 3738 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) (dismissing a pro se complaint which contained "no allegation... that any of the defendants [have] caused or threatened to cause [plaintiff] any injury, and there [was] no indication of what relief the plaintiff [sought]."). Therefore, the Court denies the request without prejudice to renew. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 7/27/2022. (Ben-Gigi, Yanai)
|
| Filing 7 Letter to Judge Chen from Junsai Xu re deletion of location data re abortion clinic searches by Google. (Lee, Tiffeny) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Junsai Xu. Junsai Xu served on 7/15/2022, answer due 8/5/2022. (FILE stamp date:7/19/2022) (Layne, Monique) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER: Plaintiff is reminded that plaintiff has 90 days from the date that the Complaint was filed to serve the Defendant and file proof of service with the Court. Plaintiff shall promptly advise the Court once the Defendant has been served with the summons and Complaint. If proper service is not made upon the Defendant by 10/5/2022, or if Plaintiff fails to show good cause why such service has not been effected by that date, it will be recommended that the District Court dismiss this action without prejudice. So Ordered by Chief Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 7/20/2022. (Henney, Scott)
|
| 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 Summons Issued as to NYS Department of State Division of Licensing Services Security Guard. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 2 FILING FEE: $ 402, receipt number 4653166434 (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against NYS Department of State Division of Licensing Services Security Guard, filed by Junsai Xu. (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
| Search for this case: Xu v. NYS Department of State Division of Licensing Services Security Guard | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Junsai Xu | |
| 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: NYS Department of State Division of Licensing Services Security Guard | |
| 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.
