Utah v. TD Bank
| Paul Utah |
| TD Bank, Law Enforcement, Private Security and TD Bank Corporation |
| 1:2019cv10735 |
| November 19, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Colleen McMahon |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 26, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 (3rd) AMENDED COMPLAINT, re: amending #8 Amended Complaint against Private Security, TD Bank Corporation, Td Bank with JURY DEMAND.Document filed by Paul Utah. Related document: #8 Amended Complaint.(sc) |
| Re-Mailed a copy of #4 Order Granting IFP Application to Paul Utah 2909 Queens Plaza North Queens, NY 11101. (aea) |
| Filing 8 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, re: amending #7 Amended Complaint against TD Bank Corporation with JURY DEMAND.Document filed by Paul Utah. Related document: #7 Amended Complaint.(sc) |
| Filing 7 (SECOND) AMENDED COMPLAINT, re: amending #2 Complaint against Law Enforcement, TD Bank Corporation with JURY DEMAND.Document filed by Paul Utah. Related document: #2 Complaint.(sc) |
| Mailed a copy of #5 Order of Dismissal, #6 Judgment - Sua Sponte (Complaint), Notice of Appeal Forms, to Paul Utah 87-42 125th Street Richmond Hill, NY 11418. (vba) |
Filing 6
CIVIL JUDGMENT. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the complaint is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Court's judgment would not be taken in good faith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mail a copy of this judgment to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 12/4/2019) (rjm) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket, mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, and note service on the docket. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 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). 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. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 12/4/2019) (rjm) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
| NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Colleen McMahon. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (rjm) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION: Leave to proceed in this Court without prepayment of fees is authorized. 28 U.S.C. 1915. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 11/22/2019) (va) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
| Mailed a copy of #4 Order Granting IFP Application to Paul Utah 87-42 125th Street Richmond Hill, NY 11418. (vba) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE CONSENT TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The following party: Paul Utah consents to receive electronic service via the ECF system. Document filed by Paul Utah. (sac) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against Law Enforcement, TD Bank. Document filed by Paul Utah. (sac) |
| Filing 1 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Paul Utah. (sac) |
| Case Designated ECF. (sac) |
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.
