Moodie v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York et al
| Donna Hope Moodie |
| Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Bruce Kemp, Richard W. Babinecz and Dean R. Brown |
| 1:2023cv04970 |
| June 13, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Laura Taylor Swain |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 16, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
ORDER denying #5 Motion for Reconsideration re #5 MOTION for Reconsideration re; #4 Order filed by Donna Hope Moodie. The Court construes Plaintiff's motion (ECF 5) as one seeking reconsideration relief under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and the Court denies the motion. This action is closed in this court. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to accept for filing in this action only those documents that are directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If Plaintiff files other documents in this action that are frivolous or meritless, the Court will direct her to show cause why the Court should not bar her from filing further documents in this action. 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). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/16/2023) (jca) Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing.
|
| Filing 6 DECLARATION of Donna H. Moodie in Support of re: #5 MOTION for Reconsideration re; #4 Order. Document filed by Donna Hope Moodie. sc) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF MOTION, Re: for Reconsideration of re; #4 Transfer Order. Document filed by Donna Hope Moodie.(sc) |
| CASE TRANSFERRED OUT ELECTRONICALLY from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York to the United States District Court - District of Eastern District of New York. (sac) |
|
Filing 4
TRANSFER ORDER: The Court directs the Clerk of Court to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed further without prepayment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. Summonses shall not issue from this court. This order closes this action in this court. 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). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/15/2023) (sac) Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing.
|
| NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case..(rdz) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE CONSENT TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The following party: Donna Hope Moodie consents to receive electronic service via the ECF system. Document filed by Donna Hope Moodie..(rdz) |
| Filing 2 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Donna Hope Moodie..(rdz) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Richard W. Babinecz, Dean R. Brown, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Bruce Kemp. Document filed by Donna Hope Moodie..(rdz) Modified on 6/14/2023 (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.
