Amaker v. Gerbing et al
| Anthony D. Amaker |
| K. Gerbing, P. Early, S. Roberts, S. Bennett, P. Wolff, Gusman, J. Rio, Barber, Lt. John Doe, A. Boyd, Flint, Coleman, Barton, Ranney, C.O. John Doe, D. Willet, Benior A. Annucci, J. McCoy, D. Venetozzi, J. Bellnier, Albert and M. Harmon |
| 1:2017cv03520 |
| May 10, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| 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
55
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 53 MOTION for Extension of Time. filed by Anthony D. Amaker, 40 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. filed by Anthony J. Annucci, For the foregoing reasons, the Represented De fendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against them are DISMISSED. Defendants Early, Roberts, Bennett, Gusman, Rio, and Barber are DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Although "courts general ly grant a pro se plaintiff leave to amend a complaint to cure its shortcomings,... leave to amend may be denied if the plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to amend but has failed to cure the complaint's deficiencies." Michel v. Orange Cty., New York, No. 21-CV-09406, 2022 WL 103581, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2022). Moreover, "leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile." Reed v. Friedman Mgt. Corp., 541 F. App'x 40, 41 (2d Cir. 2013) (c iting Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)). Having been given the opportunity to cure the Complaint's various deficiencies, specifically and fully identified in Judge Stanton's Order to Amend, and having failed to do so , the Court dismisses the claims alleged in the Amended Complaint with prejudice as any amendment would be futile. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue ). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at Docs. 40 and 53 and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 2/14/2022) Joseph Bellnier, Jefferey McCoy, K. Gerbing, D. Venetozzi, P. Wolff., P. Early, Gusman, J. Rio, S. Roberts, K. Barber and S. Bennett terminated. (ks)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER: On July 2, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Doc. 40). Pursuant to the Court's June 1, 2021 Order, Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss was due by August 6, 2021. (Doc. 8 2). To date, Plaintiff has not filed opposition to the motion or sought any extension of time to do so. The application filed by Defendants to deem their motion as fully submitted (Doc. 42) is DENIED. The Court sua sponte extends Plaintiff's time to oppose the motion to dismiss to September 17, 2021. Defendants reply, if any, is due October 1, 2021. If Plaintiff fails to file his opposition by September 17, 2021, the motion will be deemed fully submitted and unopposed. No further exte nsions of time will be granted. The Clerk is instructed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. re: 42 Letter, filed by Anthony J. Annucci, Joseph Bellnier, Jefferey McCoy, K. Gerbing, D. Venetozzi, P. Wolff, ( Responses due by 9/17/2021, Replies due by 10/1/2021.) (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 8/20/2021) (tg) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER OF SERVICE: The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. The Court deems Plaintiff's Amended Complaint the operative complaint, and dismisses Plaintiff's claims in the Amended Complaint against Lieutenant John Doe for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Defendants K. Gerbing; P. Early; S. Roberts; S. Bennett; P. Wolff; Dr. G usman; J. Rio; K. Barber; Anthony J. Annucci; J. McCoy; D. Venetozzi; and J. Bellnier. Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this action. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good fait h, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Lt. John Doe terminated. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 8/31/2020) (kv) Transmission to Pro Se Assistants for processing.
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER TO AMEND: The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. Plain tiff must submit the Second Amended Complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within 30 days of the date of this order, caption the document as a "Second Amended Complaint," and label the document with docket number 17-CV-352 0 (NSR). For Plaintiff's convenience, a Second Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff does not file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days, the Amended Complaint will be deemed the operative complaint, and the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Lieutenant John Doe for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 3/2/2020) (mro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER re: 15 Letter filed by Anthony D. Amaker. By order dated October 17, 2019, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within sixty days. (ECF No. 14.) On December 11, 2019, the Court received from Plaintiff a motion seeking an extension until January 13, 2020, to submit the amended complaint. Plaintiff's motion is granted, and he must file his amended complaint in this action on or before January 13, 2020. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Amended Pleadings due by 1/13/2020.) (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 12/16/2019) (sac)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER TO AMEND. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket, mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, and note service on the docket. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set fo rth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an "Amended Complaint," and label the document with docket number 17-CV-3520 (LLS). An Amended Civil Rights Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this as a "written opinion" within the meaning of Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 10/15/2019) (rjm). Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
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.
