Duncan v. Marks Taxidermy
Plaintiff: Judi Duncan
Defendant: Marks Taxidermy and Morgan Stanley Bank
Case Number: 1:2024cv07894
Filed: October 10, 2024
Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Laura Taylor Swain
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 22, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 22, 2024 MAILING RECEIPT: Document No: 5. Mailed to: Judi Duncan 49 Lincoln St New Rochelle, NY 10801.
November 20, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO REPLEAD: The Court dismisses the complaint, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), with 30 days' leave to replead. 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 Court directs the Clerk of Court to hold this matter open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/20/2024) (ks)
October 25, 2024 MAILING RECEIPT: Document No: 4. Mailed to: Judi Duncan 49 Lincoln St New Rochelle, NY 10801. (tn)
October 23, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 4 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 10/23/2024) (vn) Modified on 10/24/2024 (vn).
October 22, 2024 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case..(nb)
October 21, 2024 MAILING RECEIPT: Document No: 3. Mailed to: Judi Duncan 49 Lincoln St New Rochelle, NY 10801. (anc)
October 18, 2024 Opinion or Order 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 Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/18/2024) (kgo)
October 18, 2024 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..(kgo)
October 10, 2024 Filing 2 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Judi Duncan..(kgo)
October 10, 2024 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Marks Taxidermy. Document filed by Judi Duncan..(kgo)
October 10, 2024 Case Designated ECF. (kgo)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 this case: Duncan v. Marks Taxidermy
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Judi Duncan
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: Marks Taxidermy
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: Morgan Stanley Bank
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.


Why Is My Information Online?