Langhorne v. The County of Suffolk et al
| Torrance E. Langhorne and Torrence E. Langhorne |
| The County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Police Department, Det. Patrick McDermott and John Doe or Jane Doe |
| 2:2023cv00249 |
| January 9, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Rachel P Kovner |
| Steven I Locke |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 9, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER REOPENING CASE: On 1/17/2023, the Court dismissed the complaint and directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. After the deadline passed and no amended complaint was filed, the Court dismissed the case. See 2/21/2023 Order. But after the Court entered the dismissal order, the Clerks Office docketed plaintiffs #6 Amended Complaint, which is dated 2/14/2023. See Am. Compl. 11 (Dkt. #6). Accordingly, the amended complaint is timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Dory v. Ryan, 999 F.2d 679, 682 (2d Cir. 1993). The Clerk of Court is directed to vacate the order of dismissal and judgment and reopen this matter. Once this matter is reopened, the Court will screen the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Javier v. Russo, No. 21-CV-7097 (LTS), 2022 WL 254207, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2022). Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 2/24/2023. (Miyamoto, Matthew)
|
| Filing 5 CLERK'S JUDGMENT that this action is dismissed without prejudice; that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and that in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Signed by Jalitza Poveda, on behalf of Brenna B. Mahoney, Clerk of Court on 2/22/2023. (Copy of Judgment and Appeals packet mailed to Pro Se). (IH) |
| Filing 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Patrick McDermott, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, filed by Torrence E. Langhorne. (IH) |
|
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: On 1/27/2023, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiffs #1 complaint. See 1/17/2023 Order. The Court granted plaintiff 30 days to amend the complaint and advised plaintiff that failure to amend would result in the dismissal of this action. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, and the time for doing so has passed. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, close this case, and mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 2/21/2023. (Miyamoto, Matthew)
|
|
ORDER: The #2 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, but the #1 complaint is dismissed without prejudice. When a litigant files a lawsuit in forma pauperis, the district court must dismiss the case if it determines that the complaint "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A pro se plaintiff's complaint must be "liberally construed, and... however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient factual content to allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged. The complaint asserts that defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for alleged violations of plaintiff's rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. Compl. 3. The only statement supporting this claim is that defendants allegedly "participated in false arrest, falsification of criminal evidence, malicious prosecution, and other procedural forms of corruption." Id. at 4; see id. at 5 (stating that "the particulars are sensitive and will only be given clear illumination by and upon legal discovery."). Without additional factual allegations, the Court cannot conclude that plaintiffs claim "is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.Plaintiff's complaint is therefore dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty days to remedy the deficiency identified above. If plaintiff fails to amend the complaint within thirty days from this Order, judgment shall be entered. 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 1/17/2023. (Miyamoto, Matthew)
|
| Filing 4 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (DC) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF DEFICIENT FILING, litigant notified of deficiency(s) that must be corrected within fourteen (14) days. re: #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis , and #1 Complaint. (DC) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Torrance E. Langhorne. (DC) Modified to correct the date of filing on 1/13/2023 (DC). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -No,, filed by Torrance E. Langhorne. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (DC) |
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 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.
