Milhouse v. The City of New York et al
| Muhammad E. Milhouse |
| The City of New York, Joseph Rouston, Detective Sgt. Rodriguez, Detective John Doe/Jane Doe and ICO Lt. Solla |
| 1:2022cv08980 |
| October 20, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Laura Taylor Swain |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 6, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
CIVIL JUDGMENT: For the reasons stated in the December 6, 2022, order, this action is dismissed. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Courts judgment would not be taken in good faith. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/6/22) (Attachments: #1 PRO SE APPEAL PACKAGE) (rdz)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims arising from Defendants' alleged failure to investigate or make an arrest arising from his complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court dismisses, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, any claims in which Plaintiff seeks the criminal prosecution of any of the defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 59, 62 (2d Cir. 2012) ("If [a] plaintiff[ ] lack[s] Article III standing, a [federal] court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear [his] claim.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Any claims Plaintiff may be asserting arising from the events at the Covid-19 isolation site that form the basis of his consolidated cases pending under docket numbers 22-CV-2934 and 22-CV-2940 are dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff filing an amended complaint in the pending lead action, No. 22-CV-2934, to extent permitted by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). The Court denies Plaintiff's "Notice of Motion" (ECF 4) as moot. 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 IFP 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 enter judgment in this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/6/22) (rdz)
|
| Filing 6 PRO SE CONSENT TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The following party: Muhammad Milhouse consents to receive electronic service via the ECF system. Document filed by Muhammad E. Milhouse.(sc) |
| Filing 5 DECLARATION of Muhammad Milhouse in Support of re: #4 MOTION to Compel. Document filed by Muhammad E. Milhouse. (sc) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF MOTION, Re: to Compel Defendants to submit IXP and Flash Drive Go 64GB by Sandisk. Document filed by Muhammad E. Milhouse.(sc) |
| NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (sac) |
|
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 10/21/2022) (sha)
|
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against John Doe/Jane Doe, Rodriguez, Joseph Rouston, Solla, The City of New York. Document filed by Muhammad E. Milhouse..(rdz) |
| Filing 1 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Muhammad E. Milhouse..(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.
