Moore v. Samuel S. Stratten Veterans Administration Hospital
| David Allen Moore |
| Samuel S. Stratten Veterans Administration Hospital |
| 1:2016cv00475 |
| April 26, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Albany Office |
| Albany |
| Lawrence E. Kahn |
| Christian F. Hummel |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
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
81
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDERED, that the Hospitals Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 59) is GRANTED, and the claims against Samuel S. Stratton Veterans administration Hospital are DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk shall t erminate Samuel S. Stratton Veterans Administration Hospitals status as a defendant; and it is further ORDERED, that defendant Melvyn M. Brinsons Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 66) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk add Officer Gerald E. Russell III as a defendant. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on January 17, 2019. (Copy served via regular mail)(sas)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 30 Report and Recommendations. ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 30) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall substitute Off icer Brunson for the John Doe defendant in this case; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs submissions (Dkt. Nos. 21, 22, 23) are DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 4/5/2017. (Copy served via regular mail)(khr)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDERED, that Plaintiffs claim for speedy trial violations be DISMISSED with prejudice insofar as they are alleged against the defendant unnamed guard/officer; and it is further ORDERED, that, insofar as Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 16) can be read as attempting to reallege (1) Bivens claims against the unnamed guard/officer in his official capacity, and (2) claims for injunctive relief under Bivens, such claims be considered STRICKEN from the Amended Complaint as these claims were DIS MISSED with prejudice in the Courts June, 2016 Order; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint be read as attempting to set forth a claim for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment against the unnamed guard/officer, but, because such claim is conclusory, that claim be DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that any claims that Plaintiff may seek to bring against the second officer are DISMISSED without prejudice, due to Plaintiffs failure to cur e the defects in his original Complaint (Dkt. No. 1); and it is further, ORDERED, that rather than supersede and replace the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint be docketed as a supplement to Plaintiffs original Complaint, that the original Com plaint and Amended Complaint be read together as the operative complaint in this action, and that claims dismissed or stricken by the undersigned be read as if they are not contained within these documents; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk i s directed to amend the docket to reflect the correct spelling of Defendants name, which is the Samuel S. Stratton Veterans Administration Hospital. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on October 27, 2016. ***A copy of this Order was served upon pro se party via US Mail. (sas)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Applications (Dkt. Nos. 7, 10) to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that the fol lowing claims are DISMISSED with prejudice: (1) Plaintiffs Bivens claims against Defendant Hospital; (2) Plaintiffs Bivens claims against the unnamed guard/officer in his official capacity; and (3) Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief; and it is f urther ORDERED, that Plaintiffs speedy trial claims be DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend to permit Plaintiff the opportunity to (a) explain how the unnamed hospital guard was involved in the alleged speedy trial violations and/or (b ) name any other defendants who may have been involved and provide sufficient detail of such involvement; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs remaining claims survive initial review and require a response Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on June 30, 2016.***A copy of this order was served upon the pro se party by regular US mail. (sas)
|
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 Northern 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
| Search for this case: Moore v. Samuel S. Stratten Veterans Administration Hospital | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: David Allen Moore | |
| 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: Samuel S. Stratten Veterans Administration Hospital | |
| 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.
