Owens v. Preska
Alonzo Spencer Owens |
Loretta A. Preska |
1:2021cv05210 |
June 11, 2021 |
US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
J Paul Oetken |
Other Statutory Actions |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 20, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
NOTICE OF MAILING: COPY OF THE COURT'S 6/21/2021 ORDER MAILED TO PLAINTIFF ON 7/23/2021 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: Alonzo Spencer Owens 2345 Broadway # 618 New York, NY 10024 (bh) |
Filing 5 LETTER addressed to Judge J. Paul Oetken from Alonzo S. Owens, re: ALLEGEDLY NOTICE OF MOTIONS INTER ALIA BY PLAINTIFF PRO SE MOVANT BE EXPEDITED BY FED. RULES OF CIV. PROC. RULE 15 (d) ETC. RESPECTFULLY TO TIMELY SERVE CLAIM ISSUE. Document filed by Alonzo Spencer Owens.(sc) |
Filing 4 ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1651: On November 5, 2007, Plaintiff was barred from filing any new action without first obtaining leave to file from the Court. See Owens v. Seybert, et al., No. 07-CV-9787 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2007). Plaintiff now claims that Defendant Loretta A. Preska, a federal judge, violated his constitutional rights by enforcing the bar with respect to a complaint Plaintiff filed on June 5, 2015. Like Plaintiffs earlier claims, the claims here are frivolous. The Court denies Plaintiff's request for leave to file. Additionally, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It follows that 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 mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, to note service on the docket, and to close this case. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 6/21/2021) (js) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. |
Filing 2 PRO SE CONSENT TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The following party: Alonzo Spencer Owens consents to receive electronic service via the ECF system. Document filed by Alonzo Spencer Owens..(rdz) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Loretta A. Preska. (Filing Fee $ 402.00, Receipt Number 465401280932)Document filed by Alonzo Spencer Owens. (Attachments: #1 Receipt).(rdz) |
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Loretta A. Preska..(rdz) |
Case Designated ECF. (rdz) |
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn 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: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (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
Search for this case: Owens v. Preska | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Alonzo Spencer Owens | |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Loretta A. Preska | |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.