Khudan v. State of New York et al
| Ramesh Khudan |
| State of New York, Dept of Corrections NYS, Putnam County Hospital, Superintendant, Watch Commander, Sgt Greene, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3, John Doe #4, John Doe #5, John Doe #6, John Doe #7, John Doe #8, John Doe #9, John Doe #10, John Doe #11, Jaques Fuentes and Nurse Jane Doe |
| 1:2012cv08147 |
| November 7, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Unassigned |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
71
OPINION AND ORDER re: 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies) filed by Neal Greene, Duane Malark, "P" Allen, Robert Sherman, J. Erns, William Lee, Sandy Fila, Rory Hamilton, Kathy Panu to, David Deming. For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that, in the event Plaintiff seeks to appeal this O rder in forma pauperis, any appeal would not be taken in good faith. See Tavarez v. Reno, 54 F.3d 109, 110 (2d Cir. 1995) (instructing that in forma pauperis status should be denied for the purpose of an appeal where the appeal would "lack... an arguable basis in law or fact"). The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket number 59 and to close this case. (As further set forth in this Opinion and Order.) (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 9/8/2016) (mro)
|
|
Filing
55
OPINION AND ORDER re: 46 SECOND MOTION to Dismiss filed by Neal Greene, Jeffrey Erns, Duane Malark, "P" Allen, Robert Sherman, William Lee, Sandy Fila, Rory Hamilton, Kathy Panuto, David Deming. IT IS HEREBY ORDERE D THAT Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice to renewal as a motion for summary judgment on the issue of administrative exhaustion. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 46. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT by October 8, 2015, the parties shall complete limited, expedited discovery on the narrow issue of whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies and, if not, whether his non-exhaustion is excused as to each of the Defendants. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment on the issue of administrative exhaustion no later than October 29, 2015; Plaintiff shall file his opposition, if any, no l ater than November 19, 2015; and Defendants shall file their reply, if any, no later than November 30, 2015. The parties shall submit statements of material fact pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 ("56.1 statements") in connection with D efendants' motion. In light of the foregoing, and the fact that-if the administrative exhaustion issue is not dispositive of this action-Defendants may renew their motion to dismiss on the other grounds raised in their brief, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint is ADJOURNED until after the Court has resolved Defendants' summary judgment motion or, if Defendants decline to file a summary judgment motion, to October 29, 2015. (As further set forth in this Opinion.) (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 9/17/2015) (mro)
|
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.
