Bentley v. Hoovler et al
| Garfield D. Bentley |
| David M. Hoovler, The City of Newburgh, The City of Newburgh Municipality, Newburgh City Court, Orange County Courthouse, Anika Mohammed and Carl E. DuBois |
| 1:2017cv06266 |
| August 17, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Unassigned |
| 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
18
ORDER re: 16 Letter, filed by Garfield D. Bentley; 17 Letter, filed by Garfield D. Bentley. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. The Court construes Plaintiff's lett ers (ECF 16, 17) as a motion for reconsideration and denies the motion. The Clerk of Court is further directed not to accept any further submissions under this closed case number, except for papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals fo r the Second Circuit. The Court certifies under 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). (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 3/9/2021) (sac) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court 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.
