Brown v. Moralles et al
| George Maurice Brown |
| Officer Dixon, Nassau County District Attorney, Ralphael Moralles, Freeport Police Department, Freeport Fire Department, Fire Marshall Joe, Detective Kammski, ATM Real Estate, 1st Baldwin Precinct, Kathleen M. Rice, Pamela Robinson and Sergio/Incorporated Freeport Village Department |
| 2:2014cv02932 |
| May 1, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Gary R. Brown |
| Sandra J. Feuerstein |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM & ORDER: SO ORDERED that plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma pauperis in the third and fourth actions are granted; the Third Complaint and the Fourth Complaint are consolidated for all purposes, including trial, to proceed under th e Lead Case, docket number 13-4047; plaintiffs Section 1983 claims seeking release from custody are sua sponte dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l) for failure to state a claim for relief, without prejudice t o filing a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, et seq.; plaintiffs Section 1983 claims seeking damages are stayed pending termination of the underlying criminal proceedings against him; and plaintiffs Section 1 983 claims against Moralles, Robinson, A TM Real Estate are sua sponte dismissed in their entirety with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l) for failure to state a claim for relief unless, within thirty (30) days from the date this case is re-opened plaintiff files an amended complaint in accordance with this Order. The Court hereby notifies plaintiff that if he files another in forma pauperis complaint against these same defts alleging the same claims r elated to his November 5, 2012 arrest and subsequent prosecution, the Court will require that plaintiff first seek leave of Court before submitting such filing. In addition, the Court may direct the Clerk of the Court to return to plaintiff, without filing, any such action that is received without a clear application seeking leave to file, and the Court may sua sponte dismiss the case with prejudice. Plaintiffs applications for the appointment of pro bono counsel are denied without prejudice to renewal when this case is trial ready, if so warranted at that time. The Clerk of Court shall: (1) re-open the Lead Case for the limited purpose of consolidating Third Complaint and the Fourth Complaint with the Lead Case and amending the caption in the Lead Case in accordance with this Order; (2) administratively close the actions under docket numbers 14-civ-1382 and 14-civ-2392; (3) administratively close the Lead Case, with leave to reopen within two (2) weeks of the termination of the underl ying criminal proceedings against plaintiff; and (4) pursuant to Rule 77(d)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, serve notice of entry of this order upon all parties in accordance with Rule S(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No summ onses shall issue at this time. 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 any appeal. CM to pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 11/18/2014. (Florio, Lisa)
|
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.
