Camera v. New York City Department of Social Services et al
| Sekou Camera |
| Francis Pardus, Family Court of the State of New York City Kings, Mirna Mompelas, New York City Department of Social Services, New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles Mark J.F. Schroeder and The U.S. Department of State Rachel M. Arndt |
| 1:2024cv05886 |
| August 20, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Ann M Donnelly |
| Taryn A Merkl |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 6, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
CLERK'S JUDGMENT: that plaintiff's complaints are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, See Miller v. Cnty. of Nassau, 467 F. Supp. 2d 308, 312 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), any appeal would not be taken in good faith; and that IFP status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.438, 44445 (1962). Signed by Deputy Clerk, Jalitza Poveda, on behalf of Clerk of Court, Brenna B. Mahoney, on 9/6/2024. (copy of appeals packet and judgment mailed to pro se). (JP)
|
|
Filing 5
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. The plaintiff's complaints are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Miller v. Cnty. of Nassau, 467 F. Supp. 2d 308, 312 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (a dismissal "based on a finding of judicial immunity" is for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Fla., 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996) (claims barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity are properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). The Court will not grant the plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint. See Harty v.West Point Realty, 28 F.4th 435, 445 (2d Cir. 2022) ("A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction without leave to amend is not the same thing as a dismissal with prejudice."). Generally, a court should grant a pro se plaintiff leave to amend "[i]f a liberal reading of the pleading 'gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.'" Briggs v. Women in Need, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 119, 125 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (citations omitted). However, "leave to amend may properly be denied if the amendment would be futile." Monbo v. Nathan, 623 F. Supp. 3d 56, 143 (E.D.N.Y. 2022). A complaint is futile when, as a matter of law, any "proposed amendments would fail to cure prior deficiencies." Id. Where the deficiencies are substantive rather than merely the consequence of "inartful" pleading, repleading would be futile and leave to amend should be denied. Id. at 144. "[L]eave to amend is not warranted 'where it is clear from the face of the complaint that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or that a claim cannot be stated as a matter of law.'" Hardie v. United States, 501 F. Supp. 3d 152, 162 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (citations omitted). An amendment cannot reasonably be expected to cure the substantive defects that require dismissal now specifically, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction so granting leave at this juncture would be futile. See, e.g., Dixon v. Raymat, No. 22-CV-10910, 2023 WL 2917309, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2023) (denying pro se plaintiff leave to amend where plaintiffs claimswere barred by judicial immunity). Under these circumstances, repleading would be futile, and the complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se plaintiff, and note the mailing on the docket. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and therefore, IFP status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 9/5/2024. (DG)
|
|
Filing 4
Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this 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. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link: #https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf (SDM)
|
|
Filing 3
Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this 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. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link: #https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf (SDM)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Sekou Camera. (SDM)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against Family Court of the State of New York City Kings, Mirna Mompelas, New York City Department of Social Services, New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles Mark J.F. Schroeder, Francis Pardus, The U.S. Department of State Rachel M. Arndt, filed by Sekou Camera. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (SDM)
|
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.
