Kraft v. The City of New York ("CITY") et al
| Warren R. Kraft |
| UNKNOWN FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, AND UNKNOWN OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ("FBI")NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY ("NSA"), State of New York, John Does, Richard Roes, Zeke Zoes, Tom Toes, United States of America, The City of New York ("CITY") and William Woes |
| 1:2019cv10286 |
| November 5, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Jesse M Furman |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 13, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF APPEAL from #5 Order of Dismissal, #6 Clerk's Judgment. Document filed by Warren R. Kraft. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number 465401250463. Form D-P is due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (tp) |
| Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: #7 Notice of Appeal. (tp) |
| Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for #7 Notice of Appeal filed by Warren R. Kraft were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) |
| Filing 6 CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: #5 Order of Dismissal in favor of John Does, Richard Roes, State of New York, The City of New York ("CITY"), Tom Toes, UNKNOWN FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, AND UNKNOWN OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ("FBI")NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY ("NSA"), United States of America, William Woes, Zeke Zoes against Warren R. Kraft. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated November 15, 2019, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is denied as moot. Plaintiff is warned that further vexatious, frivolous, or nonmeritorious litigation in this Court may result in an order barring him from filing new actions unless he receives prior permission. See 28 U.S.C. 1651. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the 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); accordingly, judgment is entered dismissing this action and the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 11/18/2019) (Attachments: #1 Right to Appeal)(km) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. |
| Mailed a copy of #5 Order of Dismissal, #6 Clerk's Judgment, with Notice of Right to Appeal to Warren R. Kraft 64 Sunset Ave. W Red Bank, NJ 07701. (aea) |
Filing 5
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiff has consented to electronic service. The Clerk of Court is directed to note service on the docket. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is denied as moot. Plaintiff is warned that further vexatious, frivolous, or nonmeritorious litigation in this Court may result in an order barring him from filing new actions unless he receives prior permission. See 28 U.S.C. 1651. 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. 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 enter judgment dismissing this action as frivolous. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/15/2019) (kv) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
| Filing 3 PRO SE CONSENT TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The following party: Warren R. Kraft consents to receive electronic service via the ECF system. Document filed by Warren R. Kraft.(rdz) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against John Does, Richard Roes, State of New York, The City of New York ("CITY"), UNKNOWN FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, AND UNKNOWN OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ("FBI")NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY ("NSA"), United States of America, William Woes. (Filing Fee $ $400.00, Receipt Number 465401247788)Document filed by Warren R. Kraft.(rdz) |
| Filing 1 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (rdz) |
| Case Designated ECF. (rdz) |
| Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker 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) |
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to John Does, Richard Roes, State of New York, The City of New York ("CITY"), UNKNOWN FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, AND UNKNOWN OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ("FBI")NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY ("NSA"), United States of America, William Woes. (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.
