Jelen v. United States Marshall Service et al
| Sean E Jelen |
| United States Marshall Service, Michael Greco, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, Ivan Santos, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital, Jodhua Alge, Temina Levine, State of New York Department of Correction, Kevin Cheverko, Sean LNU and Joshua Alge |
| 1:2018cv00680 |
| January 25, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| William H. Pauley |
| Other 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
117
ORDER denying 116 Motion for Reconsideration: Application denied. This Court refers Plaintiff to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for guidance on the appropriate time to file his state court complaint. A copy of this Order is being mailed by Chambers staff to Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 6/9/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
115
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 114 Memorandum & Opinion. in favor of Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital, United States Marshall Service, Westchester County, Ivan Santos, Jamal Brown, Jodhua Alge, Joshua Alge, Kevin Kamrowski, Michael Greco, Paul S pano, Temina Levine against Sean E. Jelen. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 30, 2020, Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted; This Court certifies pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith; accordingly, this case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 03/31/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
114
OPINION & ORDER re: 73 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, 85 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 66 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss amended complaint: For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motions to d ismiss are granted. This Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Opinion & Order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at ECF No. 66, 73, and 85 mark this case as closed. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 3/30/2020) (jwh) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
96
MEMO ENDORSEMENT denying 93 Motion to Strike. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 93. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 12/9/2019) (jwh) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER denying 89 Motion to Appoint Counsel: Application denied at this time. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 11/14/2019) (jwh) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM & ORDER re: 47 Proposed Order to Show Cause Without Emergency Relief filed by Sean E Jelen: Based on the foregoing, Jelen's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum & Order to Jelen. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 5/6/2019) (jwh) 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.
