Rosario v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Correction et al
| Jose Rosario |
| N.Y.C. Dept. of Correction and Carlton Newton |
| 1:2012cv04795 |
| June 18, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Kings |
| 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
29
OPINION & ORDER: re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss. Plaintiff Jose Rosario, proceeding pro se, brings this lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, against defendants New York City (the "City of New York") and Warden Carlton Newton, alleging that his confinement in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC"), after the state parole board had approved him for parole, violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted. Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted. The 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 therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket number 19 and to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 5/15/2013) (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.
