Harrison v. Trailor et al
| Tony Harrison |
| Trailor, Rathengaber, Radway, Turman, Johnson, Plummer, Claudio, Marchese, Lesley Malin, Michael Capra, Jeff McKoy and Dept. of Corrections |
| 1:2017cv06678 |
| August 31, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Nelson Stephen Roman |
| Prison Condition |
| 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
63
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 62 Memorandum & Opinion in favor of Claudio, Johnson, Plummer, Radway, Rathengaber, Traylor, Turman, Jeff McKoy, Lesley Malin, Michael Capra against Tony K. Harrison. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated February 25, 2022, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and pro se Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety without leave to replead; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 2/25/2022) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER re: 52 Letter, filed by Tony K. Harrison. Plaintiff's request is denied without prejudice to renew at a later date. Unlike in criminal proceedings, the Court does not have the power to obligate attorneys to represent indigent pr o se litigants in civil cases. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 308-09 (1989). Instead, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1), the Court may, at its discretion, order that the Pro Se Office request an atto rney to represent an indigent litigant by placing the matter on a list circulated to attorneys who are members of the Court's pro bono panel. See Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F. Supp. 2d 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). The Second Circuit set fo rth the standards governing the appointment of counsel in pro se cases in Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997), Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d. Cir. 1989), and Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d C ir. 1986). At this early stage of the litigation, where a motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending before the Court and no discovery has taken place, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that his position is "likely to be of substanc e," Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion, without prejudice to renew at a later date. The Court's opinion on the pending motion to dismiss the amended complaint will address whether, and if so, how, this case will proceed to discovery. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to mail a copy of this order to pro se Plaintiff at the address on ECF and to show service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 9/13/2021) (va) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
30
OPINION & ORDER: re: 24 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Johnson, Radway, Plummer, Turman, Lesley Malin, Trailor, Claudio, Michael Capra, Rathengaber, Jeff McKoy, Marchese. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice. T he Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to terminate ECF No. 24. The Court will allow Plaintiff thirty days (30) to Amend his Complaint if he so desires. If no amendment is made by February 7, 2019, the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice and the action terminated without further notice. SO ORDERED., ( Amended Pleadings due by 2/7/2019.) (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 1/07/2019) (ama)
|
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.
