Peterson v. Reardon et al
| Aaron Peterson |
| Patrick D. Reardon, J. Crowe, W. DunDan, Mitchell, Ferguson and Valenzono |
| 9:2022cv00212 |
| March 4, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Christian F Hummel |
| Brenda K Sannes |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 26, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
Summons Issued as to J. Crowe, W. DunDan, Ferguson, Mitchell. {copy of summons; order and complaint served on the Office of the Attorney General}(nas)
|
|
Filing 7
Notification to Superintendent of Filing - Provided Superintendent at Five Points Correctional Facility with notice of instant action and a copy of Plaintiff's #4 Inmate Authorization Form. USDC/NYND Finance Dept notified. (nas, )
|
|
Filing 6
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force, failure-to-protect, harassment claims, and state law assault and battery claims against Crowe, Ferguson, DunDan, and Mitchell survive sua sponte review and require a response. ORDERED that the remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ORDERED that Reardon and Valenzono are DISMISSED as defendants in this action. ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue summonses and forward them, along with copies of the Complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon the remaining defendants. The Clerk shall forward a copy of the summonses and Complaint to the Office of the Attorney General, together with a copy of this Decision and Order. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on April 13, 2022. (Attachments: #1 case law cited, #2 case law cited, #3 case law cited, #4 case law cited, #5 case law cited, #6 case law cited, #7 case law cited, #8 case law cited, #9 case law cited, #10 case law cited, #11 case law cited) {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)
|
|
Filing 5
TEXT ORDER REOPENING CASE: This action was administratively closed due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the filing fee requirements, and plaintiff was directed to respond to the Order if s/he wished to pursue this action. Plaintiff has now responded. The Clerk is directed to reopen this action and restore it to the Court's active docket. Authorized by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on March 16, 2022. {text order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)
|
|
Filing 4
INMATE AUTHORIZATION FORM by Aaron Peterson. (nas )
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER Directing Administrative Closure with Opportunity to Comply with Filing Fee Requirement: ORDERED that, because this action was not properly commenced, the Clerk is directed to administratively close this action. ORDERED that, if plaintiff desires to pursue this action and proceed with his IFP application, he must, within 30 days of the filing date of this Order, submit a completedand signed inmate authorization form. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on March 7, 2022. {order and blank authorization form served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Aaron Peterson(nas, )
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against J. Crowe, W. DunDan, Ferguson, Mitchell, Patrick D. Reardon, Valenzono filed by Aaron Peterson. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 envelope)(nas, )
|
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 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.
