Davis v. Cannick et al
| Corey Davis |
| Aiello and Cannick LLP, Devereaux Cannick and Kevin Keating Esquire |
| 2:2014cv07571 |
| December 22, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Sandra J. Feuerstein |
| Steven I. Locke |
| Consumer Credit |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Account Receivable |
| 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
7
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED that plaintiffs application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the complaint is sua sponte dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdi ction unless, on or before June 1, 2015, plaintiff files an amended complaint pleading sufficient allegations from which the Court may ascertain that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Pursuant to Rule 77(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of the Court shall serve notice of entry of this order upon plaintiff in accordance with Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and record such service on the docket. 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 4/29/2015. (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.
