Alexander v. State of New York et al
| Craig Alexander |
| State of New York, Oneida Indian Nation Police, Andrew Wilmont, FNU O'Hanlon, Unknown State Police Officer #1, Unknown State Police Officer #2, Robert Nolan, David Jones and Oneida Indian Nation Police Bureau of Investigation |
| 6:2017cv00725 |
| July 5, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Utica Office |
| Oneida |
| Andrew T. Baxter |
| Glenn T. Suddaby |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
25
DECISION AND ORDER granting # 17 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court certifies that an appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 12/18/18. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail only as plaintiff is incarcerated)
|
|
Filing
6
DECISION and ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 4 Report and Recommendations. ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxters Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as modified by this Decision and Order; and it is further ORD ERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Wilmont and OHanlon shall be, without further Order of the Court, sua sponte DISMISSED without prejudice to renewal after Defendants criminal conviction is reversed pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U .S. 477 (1994), unless, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint correcting the pleading defects in this claims identified in the Report- Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Unknown State Police Officer #1 and Unknown State Police Officer #2 shall be, without further Order of the Court, sua sponte DISMISSED without prejudice, unless, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Deci sion and Order, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint correcting the pleading defects in this claims identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that, if Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint within the referenced thirty- day period, then the Amended Complaint shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Baxter for his review; if, however, Plaintiff fails to file a n Amended Complaint within the referenced thirty-day period, then Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Wilmont, O Hanlon, Unknown State Police Officer #1, and Unknown State Police Officer #2 shall be dismissed as described above without further Order of the Court; and it is further ORDERED that all claims against Defendants State of New York, Oneida Indian Nat ion Police, and the Oneida Indian Nation Police Bureau of Investigation are sua sponte DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs excessive-force claims against Defendants Nolan and Jones SURVIVE the Courts sua sponte rev iew of Plaintiffs Complaint, and the Clerk of Court shall issue Summonses and forward them, along with copies of the Complaint, to the U.S. Marshal for service upon Defendants Nolan and Jones, who shall respond in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on August 30, 2017. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(khr) Modified on 8/30/2017 (khr, ). Modified on 8/30/2017 (khr, ).
|
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
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.
