Grossman v. United States of America et al
| Yitz Grossman |
| Officer Ahamad Rezak, J.L. Maldonado, Ahmed Rezak, Chris Entzel, Chaplain Avrohom Richter, United States of America, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Warden B. Von Blackensee and Captain Matt Whinery |
| 7:2019cv09191 |
| October 4, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Vernon S Broderick |
| Nelson Stephen Roman |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 bb |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 28, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Mailed a copy of #4 Order 60 Days Amended Complaint to Yitz Grossman at 5 Dogwood Lane, Lawrence, NY 11559. (bwa) |
Filing 4
ORDER TO AMEND: With the exception of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Rezak arising under Bivens and RFRA the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and on immunity grounds. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, or if the amended complaint does not address the issues raised in this order, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and order service solely as to Defendant Rezak with respect to Plaintiff's Bivens and RFRA claims. All other claims will be dismissed for the reasons set forth in this order. 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 a " Amended Complaint," and label the document with docket number No. 19-CV-9191 (NSR). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, and note service on the docket. The Clerk of Court is further directed to docket this as a "written opinion" within the meaning of Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002. 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. 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 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. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 11/8/2019) (rj) Transmission to Pro Se Assistants for processing.
|
| Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy is so redesignated. (wb) |
| NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Nelson Stephen Roman. Judge Vernon S. Broderick is no longer assigned to the case. (wb) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against B. Von Blackensee, Chris Entzel, Federal Bureau of Prisons, J.L. Maldonado, Ahamad Rezak, Chaplain Avrohom Richter, United States of America, Matt Whinery. (Filing Fee $ $400.00, Receipt Number 465401245500)Document filed by Yitz Grossman.(rdz) |
| Filing 1 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (rdz) |
| Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #http://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms.php. (rdz) |
| Case Designated ECF. (rdz) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
