McMurray v. Stolz et al
| Marcellus McMurray |
| Judge Robert Stolz, Judge Laura Ward, D.A. Dasha Kabakova, D.A. Cyrus Vance, Jr. and N.Y.P.D Stephen Polesonsky |
| 1:2021cv07730 |
| September 15, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Laura Taylor Swain |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| 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 Marcellus McMurray were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF APPEAL from #4 Order of Dismissal. Document filed by Marcellus McMurray. Form D-P is due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Attachments: #1 Motion for IFP, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3). (tp) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. Document filed by Marcellus McMurray. (tp) |
| Appeal Remark as to #7 Notice of Appeal, filed by Marcellus McMurray. COA and IFP Denied 10/01/2021. (tp) |
| Appeal Fee Due: for #7 Notice of Appeal. Appeal fee due by 11/19/2021. (tp) |
| Mailed a copy of #4 Order of Dismissal, #5 Judgment - Sua Sponte (Complaint), and Notice of Appeal Instructions to Marcellus McMurray at 2419 Hoffman Street, Bronx, NY 10458. (kh) |
Filing 5
CIVIL JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this action is dismissed. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Justices Stolz and Ward under the doctrine of judicial immunity and as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (iii). The Court also dismisses Plaintiff's claims under Section 1983 against District Attorney Vance and Assistant District Attorney Kabakova under the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity and as frivolous. The Court further dismisses Plaintiffs claim of false arrest under Section 1983 against Officer Polesovsky for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and his claim of malicious prosecution under Section 1983 against Polesovsky without prejudice. The Court additionally dismisses Plaintiffs claims in which he seeks habeas corpus relief from his state-court conviction under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for lack of jurisdiction. Because these claims make no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. 2253. The Court declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff's claims under state law. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). 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 Laura Taylor Swain on 10/1/21) (Attachments: #1 PRO SE APPEAL PACKAGE) (rdz) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: The Court dismisses this action. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Justices Stolz and Ward under the doctrine of judicial immunity and as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) (2)(B)(i), (iii). The Court also dismisses Plaintiffs claims under Section 1983 against District Attorney Vance and Assistant District Attorney Kabakova under the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity and as frivolous. See id. The Court further dismisses Plaintiffs claim of false arrest under Section 1983 against Officer Polesovsky for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and his claim of malicious prosecution under Section 1983 against Polesovsky without prejudice. The Court additionally dismisses Plaintiff's claims in which he seeks habeas corpus relief from his state-court conviction under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for lack of jurisdiction. Because these claims make no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. 2253. The Court declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiffs claims under state law. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). 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 the refore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/1/21) (rdz) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
| NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case..(bcu) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION: Leave to proceed in this Court without prepayment of fees is authorized. 28 U.S.C. 1915. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/21/2021) (vn) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against Dasha Kabakova, Stephen Polesonsky, Robert Stolz, Cyrus Vance, Jr, Laura Ward. Document filed by Marcellus McMurray.(rdz) |
| Filing 1 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Marcellus McMurray.(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.
