Barnes et al v. Smith et al
| Michael Antinuche, Raleek Young, M. Telisford, Frank Rizzo, Arrello Barnes, Peter Lopez, James Moore, William Potts, Miguel Conception, Chis Hawkins and Chris Morrishaw |
| Susan Smith, Brian Fischer, Osmond Aldridge, Carla Ross and Mawmoon |
| 1:2012cv01916 |
| March 14, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Sullivan |
| Loretta A. Preska |
| 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
107
ORDER granting 82 Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket # 82.) The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion and enter judgment for the defendants. This Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S, 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 4/3/2014) (kgo)
|
|
Filing
75
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Barnes's motions to compel are denied. This Opinion and Order address Docket Entries 44, 64, and 66. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 8/19/2013) (js)
|
|
Filing
51
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 25 Motion for Sanctions; denying 32 Motion for Default Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion to Dismiss; denying 40 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's motions for sanctions and for a default judgment (Dk. #25 and Dk. #32) are DENIED. Plaintiff Arrello Barnes, proceeding pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Barnes is a mentally ill inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Commun ity Supervision ("DOCCS"). Defendant Fischer is Commissioner of DOCCS. Defendants Ross, Smith, Mahmud, and Yildiz are employees of the New York State Office of Mental Health. Construing the complaint liberally, plaintiff alleges that defend ants have been, and continue to be, deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs arising from his mental illness in violation of the Eighth Amendment, as applied here through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The complaint also raises a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause insofar as plaintiff, an African American, alleges that he received disparate medical care on account of his race. The complaint seeks damages and prospective injunctiv e relief on behalf of Barnes as well as other inmates not parties to this action. Defendants move, under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., to dismiss the complaint on the grounds as set forth herein. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dk. # 40) is DENIED. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dk. #34) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to all claims against defendant Fischer and as to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against all defendants. Defendants' motion is otherwise DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 2/20/2013) (ja)
|
|
Filing
50
OPINION AND ORDER #102876 re: 15 APPLICATION for the Court to Request Counsel, filed by Arrello Barnes. After careful review of Barnes's application in light of the aforementioned principles, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 2/4/2013) (cd) Modified on 2/5/2013 (rsh).
|
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.
