Thomas v. Pingotti et al
| William A. Thomas |
| L. Pingotti, G. Gardner, J. Taylor-Stewart, S. Koba, R. Scaringi, A. Piliero-Kinderman, Bode-Cutler, K. Cutler, S. Clayburn, Stefanik, Pearson, Dr. Parks, Commissioner Polizzi, Denniston, Snyder, M. Hines and Captain Bertone |
| 9:2017cv00300 |
| March 16, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Prisoner Office |
| Wyoming |
| David E. Peebles |
| Glenn T. Suddaby |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
17
JUDGMENT entered pursuant to the Decision and Order of the Honorable Judge Glenn T. Suddaby, filed on the 6th day of September, 2017. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
|
|
Filing
16
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that upon review of the pleadings filed in Thomas I (9:17-cv-300) and Thomas II (9:17-cv-377), the Court finds that there is considerable duplication and repetition of claims and defendants in these two actions, as to which common questions of law and fact exist; because the pleading in Thomas II is more complete and because plaintiff has asserted additional claims and named additional defendants in that action, Thomas I is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice in favor of Thomas II. ORDERED that plaintiff's IFP application in Thomas I (Dkt. No. 11 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/6/17. (served on plaintiff by regular mail)(alh, )
|
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.
