Chowdhury v. New York City Housing Authority et al
Badrul Chowdhury |
Robin Yudkovitz, New York City Housing Authority and Mickhail Ginzburg |
1:2024cv07263 |
October 9, 2024 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
Lois Bloom |
Pamela K Chen |
Other Statutory Actions |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on November 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis Notice of Appeal by Badrul Chowdhury. (VJ) |
Filing 7 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #5 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Order Dismissing Case, by Badrul Chowdhury. (VJ) |
Electronic Index to Record on Appeal sent to US Court of Appeals. #7 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 6 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B); that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith; and that IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Signed by Deputy Clerk, Jalitza Poveda, on behalf of Clerk of Court, Brenna B. Mahoney, on 11/4/2024. (copy of appeals packet and judgment mailed to pro se). (JP) |
Filing 5 ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") is granted, and for the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, mail a copy of the judgment and this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Plaintiff, note the mailing on the docket, and close 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, IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 11/1/2024. (AGA) |
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 (KD) |
Filing 3 Pro Se Consent to Electronic Notification by Badrul Chowdhury (KD) |
Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Badrul Chowdhury. (KD) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Michael Ginzburg, New York City Housing Authority, Robin Yudkovitz, filed by Badrul Chowdhury. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (KD) |
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.