George v. Kings County Hospital Center

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District George v. Kings County Hospital Center

George v. Kings County Hospital Center

Plaintiff:	Sunil P. George
Defendant:	Kings County Hospital Center
Case Number:	2:2016cv04482
Filed:	August 10, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	Gary R. Brown
Presiding Judge:	Joanna Seybert
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 7, 2017	Filing 12 FILING INJUNCTION ORDER; To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Order, reconsideration is DENIED. The Court now enters a Filing Injunction ENJOINING Plaintiff from filing any new action in this Court against Defendant relating to the te rmination of his employment without first seeking leave of Court. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff, without filing, any new action relating to the termination of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant if it is received without a separate application seeking leave to file. 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, should Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, such status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 2/7/2017. C/M (Valle, Christine)
November 29, 2016	Filing 7 MEMORANDUM & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, however the Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii). Given the dismissal, Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel to represent him in this case is DENIED as it is now MOOT. Plainti ff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS WHY AN ORDER BARRING HIM FROM FILING ANY NEW COMPLAINT RELATING TO THE TERMINATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTE D to mail a copy of this Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff at his last known address and to file proof of such service with the Court. 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. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 11/29/2016. C/M (Valle, Christine)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 7, 2017

Filing 12 FILING INJUNCTION ORDER; To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Order, reconsideration is DENIED. The Court now enters a Filing Injunction ENJOINING Plaintiff from filing any new action in this Court against Defendant relating to the te rmination of his employment without first seeking leave of Court. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff, without filing, any new action relating to the termination of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant if it is received without a separate application seeking leave to file. 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, should Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, such status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 2/7/2017. C/M (Valle, Christine)

November 29, 2016

Filing 7 MEMORANDUM & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, however the Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii). Given the dismissal, Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel to represent him in this case is DENIED as it is now MOOT. Plainti ff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS WHY AN ORDER BARRING HIM FROM FILING ANY NEW COMPLAINT RELATING TO THE TERMINATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTE D to mail a copy of this Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff at his last known address and to file proof of such service with the Court. 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. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 11/29/2016. C/M (Valle, Christine)

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 this case: George v. Kings County Hospital Center
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sunil P. George
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: Kings County Hospital Center
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.

Why Is My Information Online?