Dyce v. Khelemsky
| Renee Dyce |
| Dr. Serge Khelemsky, DO |
| 1:2023cv06709 |
| September 6, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Sanket J Bulsara |
| Pamela K Chen |
| Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Medical Malpractice |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 25, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 505 receipt number 100010395 re #8 Notice of Appeal filed by Renee Dyce (VJ) |
| Supplemental Electronic Index to Record on Appeal sent to US Court of Appeals. #8 Notice of Appeal Documents are available via Pacer. For docket entries without a hyperlink or for documents under seal, contact the court and we'll arrange for the document(s) to be made available to you. (VJ) |
| Filing 14 AFFIDAVIT of Service for #11 Motion/Affidavit In Support served on Dr. Serge Khelemsky on 10/24/23, filed by Renee Dyce. (Recvd. 10/25/26) (MLR) |
| Filing 12 (Medical)EXHIBITS to #11 motion to reopen filed by Renee Dyce. (MLR) |
ORDER: The Court denies Plaintiff's #11 motion to reopen pursuant to the Court's #6 Memorandum and Order dismissing Plaintiff's #1 Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff provides no basis for reconsideration of that dismissal or for re-opening this matter. The Court has reviewed the Amended the Complaint [11-1] that she filed with her motion and finds that it still does not allege facts establishing subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, i.e., there is no diversity jurisdiction nor federal-question jurisdiction. Accordingly, this matter remains closed. The Court further notes that Plaintiff has already noticed an appeal of the Court's dismissal order, and requested in forma pauperis status for that appeal, which the Court denied. (Dkts. #8 , #9 ; 10/13/2023 Docket Order.) Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not respond to any further filings by her in this matter. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 10/24/2023. (FG)
|
| Filing 11 MOTION to Reopen Case w/Affidavit in Support of Motion to Reopen Case, filed by Renee Dyce. (MLR) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/23/2023: #1 Proposed Amd. Complaint) (MLR). |
| Filing 10 Letter from Renee Dyce to Judge Chen, "requesting pardon on the submission of an incomplete complaint/paperwork." (w/Exhibits). (MLR) (Main Document 10 replaced on 10/24/2023) (TLH). |
|
ORDER: On September 13, 2023, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's #1 Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) and 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. #6 .) Judgment was entered on September 14, 2023. (Dkt. #7 .) On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed her #9 motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. A Court may deny in forma pauperis status for an appeal if it finds that the appeal would not be taken in good faith and articulates such findings in writing. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) ("An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith."). The standard for "good faith" in pursuing an appeal is objective. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962) ("We consider a defendant's good faith... demonstrated when he seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous."). Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a basis to support this Court's subject matter jurisdiction and the Court, in its previous #6 Order, denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of appeal. Accordingly, Plaintiff's #9 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied without prejudice to her ability to seek the same relief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 445. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 10/13/2023. (AH)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis Notice of Appeal by Renee Dyce. (VJ) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #6 Order Dismissing Case, by Renee Dyce. (VJ) |
| Electronic Index to Record on Appeal sent to US Court of Appeals. #8 Notice of Appeal Documents are available via Pacer. For docket entries without a hyperlink or for documents under seal, contact the court and we'll arrange for the document(s) to be made available to you. (VJ) |
| Filing 7 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B); that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), any appeal would not be taken in good faith; and that in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal, Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.438, 44445 (1962). Signed by Brenna B. Mahoney, Clerk of Court by J. Poveda, Deputy Clerk on 9/14/2023. c/m w-appeal packet to Renee Dyce. (ML) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to refile. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application is granted, but the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal 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, 269 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 9/13/2023. (SK)
|
| Filing 5 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. (SR) |
| Filing 4 Case transferred in from District of New York Southern; Case Number 1:23-cv-07705. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. |
| The case of Dyce v. Khelemsky, has been transferred from Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The new case number is 23-cv-6709. PLEASE NOTE: if you plan to continue representing your client(s), you must be admitted to practice before this court. You must do so by applying for Pro Hac Vice or permanent admission. To apply for Pro Hac Vice admission, you must first register for an ECF login and password. Please visit the Court's website at www.nyed.uscourts.gov/attorney-admissions for guidance. Once registered, you must electronically file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. You must pay the required pro hac vice fee online. (SR) |
| MAILING RECEIPT: Document No: 3. Mailed to: Renee Dyce 3015 Clarendon Road Brooklyn, NY 11226. (sha) [Transferred from New York Southern on 9/8/2023.] |
| CASE TRANSFERRED OUT ELECTRONICALLY from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York to the United States District Court - District of Eastern District of New York. (sac) [Transferred from New York Southern on 9/8/2023.] |
|
Filing 3
TRANSFER ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed further without prepayment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. A summons shall not issue from this Court. This order closes this case. 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 8/30/2023) (sac) Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing. [Transferred from New York Southern on 9/8/2023.]
|
| NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (vba) [Transferred from New York Southern on 9/8/2023.] |
| Filing 2 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Renee Dyce. (sac) [Transferred from New York Southern on 9/8/2023.] |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Serge Khelemsky, DO. Document filed by Renee Dyce. (sac) [Transferred from New York Southern on 9/8/2023.] |
| Case Designated ECF. (sac) [Transferred from New York Southern on 9/8/2023.] |
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: Dyce v. Khelemsky | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Renee Dyce | |
| 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: Dr. Serge Khelemsky, DO | |
| 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.
