Suffolk County Department of Social Services v. Roger W Clarke Jr
Petitioner: Suffolk County Department of Social Services
Respondent: Roger W Clarke Jr
Case Number: 2:2017cv06741
Filed: November 17, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge: Joanna Seybert
Presiding Judge: Anne Y. Shields
Nature of Suit: Constitutional - State Statute
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1442 Petition for Removal
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 8 MEMORANDUM & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: this action is REMANDED to the State Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Clerk of the Court shall: (1) MAIL a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of the Family Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and (2) MAIL a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Respondent. Given the remand, Respondent's motions for disqualification are DENIED as they are now MOOT. RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS WHY AN ORDER BARRING HIM FROM FILING ANY FURTHER NOTICE OF REMOVAL SEEKING TO REMOVE THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ACTION TO THIS COURT OR ANY NEW COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER AS WAS SET FO RTH IN THE NOTICES OF REMOVAL SHOULD NOT ENTERED. Respondent is advised that failure to file an affidavit in accordance with this Order to Show Cause will lead to the entry of an order barring Respondent from filing any new notice of removal or compl aint relating to the child support enforcement action and the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to return to Respondent, without filing, any such action. Respondent is also cautioned that, should he file another notice of removal or complaint relating to the child support enforcement action, it is within the Court's authority to consider imposing sanctions upon him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Although Respondent paid the filing fee in this Court, the Court certifi es pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that, should Respondent seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Show Cause to Respondent at his last known address and to file proof of such service with the Court. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 12/11/2017. (CM to pro se respondent) (Certified CM to Clerk of Family Court of the State of NY, County of Suffolk) (Florio, Lisa)
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: Suffolk County Department of Social Services v. Roger W Clarke Jr
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Roger W Clarke Jr
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 ]
Petitioner: Suffolk County Department of Social Services
Represented By: Susan A. Flynn
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?