Grefer v. Cayuga County Sherriff Schenk
Plaintiff: Charles R. Grefer
Defendant: Cayuga County Sherriff Schenk
Case Number: 5:2023cv00176
Filed: February 7, 2023
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Andrew T Baxter
Referring Judge: Therese Wiley Dancks
2 Judge: David N Hurd
3 Judge: Glenn T Suddaby
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 8, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 22, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 14 OBJECTIONS to the #9 Report and Recommendations by Charles R. Grefer, Pro Se. (pjh, )
March 20, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 13 MOTION to Transfer Case back to the Western District of New York filed by Charles R. Grefer, Pro Se. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter. (pjh, )
March 9, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 12 TEXT ORDER granting Plaintiff's #11 letter-motion requesting an extension of time to file objections to the #9 Report-Recommendation by 3/20/2023. SO ORDERED by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 3/9/2023. (Copy served upon plaintiff, along with a courtesy copy of the #9 R/R, via regular mail to plaintiff's new address 470 Meigs Street, Suite 3, Rochester, NY, 14607) (sal )
March 9, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 11 Letter Motion from Charles R. Grefer requesting an extension of time to file objections to the Dkt. No.: #9 Report Recommendation. (hmr)
March 6, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 10 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. [Return to Send - Refused - Unable to Forward] Regarding non-service of the #9 Order and Report-Recommendations. Sent to: Charles R. Grefer. Address sent to: Cayuga County Jail, 7445 County House Road, Auburn, NY 13021. (map)
February 22, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is RECOMMENDED, that plaintiff's #5 motions to proceed IFP be DENIED because plaintiff has accumulated three strikes under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), and is not entitled to the imminent danger exception, and it is RECOMMENDED, that the above-captioned actions be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of the Courts order approving this Recommendation, plaintiff pays the courts filing fee offour hundred and two dollars ($402.00) in full as to each separate action, and it is RECOMMENDED, that upon plaintiff's compliance with the District Court's order, the Clerk be directed to return the file to me for review of plaintiff's complaints in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1915A and it is ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order and Report- Recommendation on plaintiff.( Objections to R&R due by 3/8/2023, Case Review Deadline 3/13/2023). Signed by US Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter on 2/22/2023. {Copy served upon pro se via regular mail}(pjh, )
February 10, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 8 TEXT ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Upon review of this case, it was determined that this case is directly related to case 5:23-cv-172 (GTS/ATB). In the interest of judicial economy, this case is reassigned to District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby and Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter for all further proceedings. District Judge David N. Hurd and Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks are no longer assigned to this case. SO ORDERED by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 2/10/2023. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail)(sal)
February 9, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 7 Case transferred in from District of New York Western; Case Number 6:23-cv-06050. electronically transferred when case opened
February 7, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER the Court finds that venue for Plaintiff's action is not proper in this District. In the interest of justice, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). The Court makes no ruling as to the sufficiency of the complaint, nor does it consider the merits of Plaintiff's amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. 5), under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a), (b), and (g) (the three strikes provision). The Court leaves those issues to the Northern District. The judgment administratively closing this action, (Dkt.4), is hereby vacated. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 2/7/23. (RE) [Transferred from New York Western on 2/9/2023.]
February 7, 2023 Opinion or Order Order #6 mailed to Charles R. Grefer. (RE) [Transferred from New York Western on 2/9/2023.]
January 30, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Charles R. Grefer. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(RE) [Transferred from New York Western on 2/9/2023.] Modified on 2/9/2023 to reflect that inmate authorization form is attached. (nas, ).
January 23, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 4 VACATED pursuant to #6 Order. JUDGMENT administratively terminating the case. Signed by Mary C. Loewenguth, Clerk of Court on 1/23/23.(RE)This was mailed to: Charles R. Grefer. Modified docket text on 2/7/2023 (RE). [Transferred from New York Western on 2/9/2023.]
January 23, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk is directed to administratively terminating this action and send to Plaintiff a form motion to proceed in forma pauperis with supporting affirmation. If Plaintiff wishes to reopen this case, he must notify the Court in writing within 30 days of the date of this Order and must include either (1) the required certification of Plaintiff's inmate trust fund account (or institutional equivalent) and authorization form or (2) the $350.00 filing fee and the $52.00 administrative fee ($402.00 total). SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 1/23/23. (RE)This was mailed to: Charles R. Grefer with form motion to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting affirmation. [Transferred from New York Western on 2/9/2023.]
January 18, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Charles R. Grefer.(RE) [Transferred from New York Western on 2/9/2023.]
January 18, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Cayuga County Sherriff Schenk, filed by Charles R. Grefer. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Envelope)(RE) [Transferred from New York Western on 2/9/2023.]
January 18, 2023 Opinion or Order Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge: A United States Magistrate of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form (AO-85) is available for download at #http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/forms. Prisoner Pro Se packet consisting of Privacy Notice, Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge, and Civil Case Timeline mailed to plaintiff. (RE) [Transferred from New York Western on 2/9/2023.]

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Grefer v. Cayuga County Sherriff Schenk
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Charles R. Grefer
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: Cayuga County Sherriff Schenk
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?