Brocklebank v. Nassau County Correctional Center

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Brocklebank v. Nassau County Correctional Center

Brocklebank v. Nassau County Correctional Center

Plaintiff:	Gerald Brocklebank
Armor Corps:	Nassau County Correctional Center
Case Number:	2:2017cv05198
Filed:	September 1, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	Joan M. Azrack
Presiding Judge:	Steven I. Locke
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
March 12, 2019	Filing 12 ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Accordingly (PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS), this action and the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b). Plaintiff's failure to provide the Court with a current address is an additional reason to dismiss this action. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment, close this case and mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff at his last known address. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) that any ap peal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 3/12/2019. (c/m to pro se) (Ortiz, Grisel)
November 6, 2018	Filing 10 ORDER: For the forgoing reasons (PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS), the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, but the complaint is sua sponte dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege aplausible claim for r elief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiff is afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint in accordance with this Order. Plaintiff's amended complaint must be labeled as an "amended complaint," ; bear the same docket number as this Order, 17-CV-5198 (JMA)(SIL), and must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Alternatively, plaintiff may seek to pursue any state law claims, including medical malpractice claims, in stat e court. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, judgment shall enter and this case shall be closed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Or der would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purposeof any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 11/6/2018. (c/m to pro se) (Ortiz, Grisel)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 12, 2019

Filing 12 ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Accordingly (PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS), this action and the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b). Plaintiff's failure to provide the Court with a current address is an additional reason to dismiss this action. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment, close this case and mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff at his last known address. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) that any ap peal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 3/12/2019. (c/m to pro se) (Ortiz, Grisel)

November 6, 2018

Filing 10 ORDER: For the forgoing reasons (PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS), the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, but the complaint is sua sponte dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege aplausible claim for r elief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiff is afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint in accordance with this Order. Plaintiff's amended complaint must be labeled as an "amended complaint," ; bear the same docket number as this Order, 17-CV-5198 (JMA)(SIL), and must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Alternatively, plaintiff may seek to pursue any state law claims, including medical malpractice claims, in stat e court. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, judgment shall enter and this case shall be closed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Or der would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purposeof any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 11/6/2018. (c/m to pro se) (Ortiz, Grisel)

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: Brocklebank v. Nassau County Correctional Center
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Gerald Brocklebank
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 ]
Armor corps: Nassau County Correctional 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?