Seymore v. Department of Corr. Services et al
| Maurice Seymore |
| DOCS Medical Dept. Commissioner, Bob Barker Co., Inc., Dora Schirrs, Department of Corr. Services Floor Contractor, Jane Doe, John Doe, Davis, Department of Corr. Services, Maintenance Dept. Commissioner and Mims |
| 1:2011cv02254 |
| March 28, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Queens |
| John G. Koeltl |
| Prison Condition |
| 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
96
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 74 MOTION to Dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint for failing to state a cause of action and. MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. filed by Bob Barker Co., Inc., 77 MOTION to Dismiss. filed b y New York City Department of Correctional Services, Davis, John Doe, Dora Schirrs, Jane Doe, Department of Corr. Services Floor Contractor, DOCS, Maintenance Dept. Commissioner, Anthony Bilardi, Bob Moss, Steven Halprin, DOCS Medical Department at G MDC, J. Davis, Ms. Ard, Department of Corr. Services, DOCS Medical Dept. Commissioner, Erik Berliner, The City of New York, Senyon Altshuler, Mims. The Court has considered all of the arguments by the parties. To the extent not specifically address ed above, the arguments are either moot or without merit. For the reasons explained above, the defendants motion to dismiss is granted. Because the Court has twice allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint, the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this action and closing the case. The Clerk is also directed to close all pending motions. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 2/18/2014) (djc)
|
|
Filing
90
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The plaintiff has made another application to appoint counsel. This motion is denied without prejudice for failure to make the required showing. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has articulated factors that sh ould guide the Courts discretion to appoint counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986); Jackson v. Moscicki, No. 99Civ. 2427, 2000 WL 511642, at *4 (S.D .N.Y. Apr. 27, 2000). For the Court to order the appointment of counsel, the plaintiff must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that the claim has substance or a likelihood of success on the merits. See Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61. Only then can the Cou rt consider the other factors appropriate to determination of whether counsel should be appointed: plaintiffs ability to obtain representation independently, and [her] ability to handle the case without assistance in the light of the required factual investigation, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for expertly conducted cross-examination to test veracity. Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). As in his previous motions, the plaintiff has not made any showing that his claim is likely to succeed on the merits. The plaintiffs application for the Court to appoint counsel is therefore deniedwithout prejudice for failure to make the required showing at this time. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 11/15/2013) (djc) Modified on 11/15/2013 (djc).
|
|
Filing
85
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The plaintiff's application for the Court to appoint counsel is therefore denied without prejudice for failure to make the required showing at this time. The plaintiff has until November 15, 2013 to respond to the defendants motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 10/23/2013) (djc)
|
|
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 58 APPLICATION for the Court to Request Counsel. filed by Maurice Seymore. The plaintiff's application for the Court to appoint counsel is therefore denied without prejudice for failure tomake the required showing at this time. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 11/15/2012) (djc)
|
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 Southern 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.
