Morales v. New York University et al
| Annette Morales |
| New York University, Tracy Figueroa, Rodney Benson, Tara Culyner, Shima Gorgani, Ted Magder, Dr. Dorothy Lebeau, Dr. Laura Boucai, Danielle Resto, Natasha Schull, Rebecca Brown and Claudia Perdomo |
| 1:2022cv06452 |
| October 20, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Lois Bloom |
| Rachel P Kovner |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 25, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER: On 11/21/2022, the Court ordered plaintiff to submit, by 12/5/2022, a supplemental application to proceed in forma pauperis to clarify an apparent inconsistency between plaintiff's employment status as reflected in her complaint and her employment status as reflected in her in forma pauperis application. The Court advised plaintiff that failure to submit this supplemental information could result in her application being denied. To date, plaintiff has neither submitted this additional information nor requested an extension of time. Without this additional information, the Court cannot determine whether plaintiff can "pay the filing fee and still have the necessities of life," and thus whether to grant her request. Ginsberg v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-CV-207 (JMA), 2021 WL 1428580, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2021). By 1/12/2023, plaintiff shall either file her supplemental application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, or the case will be dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 12/12/2022. (SDC)
|
|
ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis at #2 , dated 10/20/2022, indicates that plaintiff is not currently employed. But plaintiff's complaint, also dated 10/20/2022, as well as the 7/21/2022 charge of discrimination attached thereto, suggest plaintiff remains employed by defendant New York University. See Compl. 7-8, 12-13 (Dkt. #1). By 12/5/2022, plaintiff shall submit a supplemental application indicating whether she is currently employed by NYU and, if so, providing information regarding her gross pay or wages and her take-home pay or wages in that position. Plaintiff is advised that if the Court does not receive this supplemental information, her application may be denied. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 11/18/2022. (de Carvalho, Simon)
|
| 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. (PB) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Annette Morales. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (PB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Annette Morales. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (PB) |
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.
