Goldstein v. The Bowery Defendants et al
| Jesse S. Goldstein, Esq. |
| Kathy Doe, The Trust Defendants, Julie Doe, The Bowery Defendants, Elizabeth Carabello, Esq., United Health Care, Christian Herald Association doing business as The Bowery Mission and James Winans |
| 1:2024cv05683 |
| July 25, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Laura Taylor Swain |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 18, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
CIVIL JUDGMENT: For the reasons stated in the August 12, 2024, 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. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/18/2024) (nb)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO REPLEAD The Court severs, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, Plaintiff's claims against the following defendants and dismisses them without prejudice to his repleading those claims in a separate action in state or federal court, as appropriate: Eric Adams, Yisroel Botnick, Edward Caban, Tao Chen, Andrew Clateman, Joyce Clateman, Peter Clateman, Jamie Dimon, Robert Freedman, Martin Goldstein, John Gonzalez, Martin Gruenberg, Human Resources Administration (SNAP), J.P. Morgan Chase, Fedy Jacobson, Barry Kamins, John Kiefer, Guy James Mangano, Abraham Niyazov, Barton Rack, The City of New York, The J.P. Morgan Chase Defendants, The NYPD Defendants, The New York Law License Defendants, Saul Clateman, The Troy Avenue Defendants. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate these defendants on the docket. The Court dismisses Plaintiffs claims against the Bowery Mission defendants (the Bowery Mission; Christian Herald Association; James Winans; Elizabeth Carabello; Supervisor Julia (or Julie) Doe, John and Jane Doe volunteers, and Kathy Doe) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days leave to amend his complaint to replead his claims against the Bowery Mission defendants. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to hold this matter open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered. The claims will be dismissed with prejudice if no amended pleading is filed or if the amended pleading is insufficient to state a claim against these defendants upon which relief may be granted. 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). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 8/12/2024) (jca)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER re: #2 Order to Show Cause - Unsigned filed by Jesse S. Goldstein, Esq. Plaintiff's request for an order to show cause (ECF No. 2) is denied. 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. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 8/7/2024) (nb)
|
|
Filing 8
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 8/7/2024) (nb)
|
| Filing 7 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Jesse S. Goldstein, Esq. (nb) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR IFP APPLICATION: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay $405.00 in fees a $350.00 filing fee plus a $55.00 administrative fee or, to request authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. 1914, 1915. Plaintiff submitted the complaint without the filing fees or an IFP application. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $405.00 in fees or submit the attached IFP application. If Plaintiff submits the IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 24-CV-5683 (LTS). If the Court grants the IFP application, Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). No summons shall issue at this time. If Plaintiff complies with this order, the case shall be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk's Office. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed. 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. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Filing Fee due by 8/29/2024. In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Application due by 8/29/2024. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 7/30/2024) (jca)
|
| Filing 5 PRO SE CONSENT TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The following party: Jesse S. Goldstein, Esq. consents to receive electronic service via the ECF system. Document filed by Jesse S. Goldstein, Esq. (sac) Modified on 7/29/2024 (sac). |
|
Filing 4
ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR IFP APPLICATION: Plaintiff is directed to render payment of the filing fee or submit an IFP application to this Court's Pro Se Office within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket. 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, 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). Filing Fee due by 8/26/2024. In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Application due by 8/26/2024. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 7/26/2024) (nb)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING ORDER IN RE CASES FILED BY PRO SE PLAINTIFFS (See 24-MISC-127 Standing Order filed March 18, 2024). To ensure that all cases heard in the Southern District of New York are handled promptly and efficiently, all parties must keep the court apprised of any new contact information. It is a party's obligation to provide an address for service; service of court orders cannot be accomplished if a party does not update the court when a change of address occurs. Accordingly, all self-represented litigants are hereby ORDERED to inform the court of each change in their address or electronic contact information. Parties may #consent to electronic service to receive notifications of court filings by email, rather than relying on regular mail delivery. Parties may also ask the court for #permission to file documents electronically. Forms, including instructions for consenting to electronic service and requesting permission to file documents electronically, may be found by clicking on the hyperlinks in this order, or by accessing the forms on the courts website, nysd.uscourts.gov/forms. The procedures that follow apply only to cases filed by pro se plaintiffs. If the court receives notice from the United States Postal Service that an order has been returned to the court, or otherwise receives information that the address of record for a self-represented plaintiff is no longer valid, the court may issue an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with this order. Such order will be sent to the plaintiffs last known address and will also be viewable on the court's electronic docket. A notice directing the parties' attention to this order shall be docketed (and mailed to any self-represented party that has appeared and has not consented to electronic service) upon the opening of each case or miscellaneous matter that is classified as pro se in the court's records. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/18/2024) (sac)
|
| CASE MANAGEMENT NOTE: For each electronic filing made in a case involving a self-represented party who has not consented to electronic service, the filing party must serve the document on such self-represented party in a manner permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2) (other than through the ECF system) and file proof of service for each document so served. Please see #Rule 9.2 of the courts ECF Rules & Instructions for further information. (sac) |
| NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (vba) |
| Filing 2 UNSIGNED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE filed by Jesse S. Goldstein, Esq. (sac) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Eric Adams, Yisroel Botnick, Edward Caban, Elizabeth Carabello, Esq, Tao Chen, Christian Herald Association, Andrew Clateman, Joyce Clateman, Peter Clateman, Jamie Dimon, Julie Doe, Kathy Doe, Robert Freedman, Martin Goldstein, John Gonzalez, Martin Gruenberg, Human Resources Administration (SNAP), J.P. Morgan Chase, Fedy Jacobson, Barry Kamins, John Kiefer, Guy James Mangano, Abraham Niyazov, Barton Rack, The Bowery Defendants, The City of New York, The J.P. Morgan Chase Defendants, The NYPD Defendants, The New York Law License Defendants, The Saul Clateman, The Troy Avenue Defendants, The Trust Defendants, United Health Care, James Winans. Document filed by Jesse S. Goldstein, Esq. (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.
