Babyrev v. Lanotte et al
| Vadim Babyrev |
| A. Lanotte, Sanz and Oyakhilome |
| 1:2016cv05421 |
| July 7, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Colleen McMahon |
| Civil Rights |
| 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
120
ORDER: For all of these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs case with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case. Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to Babyrev, K.F.P.C., Ward 2E, 600 E. 125th Street, Wards Island, N.Y. 10035. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 12/01/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER: At this stage in the proceedings, and without any substantive activity by Babyrev in over a year, the Court is unable to conclude that Plaintiff's claims are likely to have merit. Babyrev's application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is therefore DENIED without prejudice. To the extent this case remains open, Plaintiff may, however, seek advice from the New York Legal Assistance Group by calling 212-659-6190. In addition, the Court directs Babyrev to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) by letter by Friday, November 20, 2020. Failure to comply with Court orders may result in sanctions,including dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 10/30/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
115
ORDER: On July 7, 2016,pro se plaintiff Vadim Babyrev, a patient at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. A Lanotte and other officials employed by the Kirby Psychiatric Ce nter and New York State in their individual and official capacities ( collectively, "Defendants"). Doc. 1. Defendants answered Babyrev's third amended complaint on April 20, 2018. Docs. 91-94. Since then, there has been no a ctivity in this matter. Accordingly, the parties are directed to submit a joint status report by October 29, 2020. Failure to comply with the Court's order could result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 10/8/2020) (mro)
|
|
Filing
80
OPINION AND ORDER re: 54 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Ann Marie T. Sullivan. For the reasons set forth above, Commissioner Sullivans motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically: Pla intiff's claim for injunctive relief directing Commissioner Sullivan to revise OMH's policies "regarding the use of a phone and its restrictions, the use of plasticware/eating utensils and its restriction, and the policies regarding strip searches of patients" is dismissed without prejudice. (As further set forth in this Order.) Plaintiff may file a Third Amended Complaint by February 5, 2018. Otherwise, the matter will go forward only with respect to Plaintiff's rema ining claims for injunctive relief and damages. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 54, and to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 67; 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Amended Pleadings due by 2/5/2018.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 1/11/2018) (cf)
|
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.
