Trotman v. Warden of DOC NYC et al
| David M. Trotman |
| Warden of DOC NYC, Greivence Coordinator Officer, Police Officer "Jane" Doe, Officer on post May 8th 2024 Q.C.V.C., Staff that authorized fictional reports on January 5th 2024, Captain Rodriguez, Officer on post March 7th 2024 O.B. CC, Officer on post April 2 otu 2024 O.G.V.V, Lewis, Shield #213 Captain, Officer and Officer on post in the control tower SB May 8th 2024 GRVC |
| 1:2024cv08455 |
| November 6, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Laura Taylor Swain |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 6, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
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returned to the court, or otherwise receives information that the address of record for a self-represented plaintiff is no longer valid, the court may issue an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with this order.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) (vba)
|
| Filing 11 CASE TRANSFERRED IN from the United States District Court - District of New York Eastern; Case Number: 1:24-cv-05205. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket entries received. |
| CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE - TRANSFER CASE: This case is assigned to: Unassigned Judge. (vba) |
| Case Designated ECF. (vba) |
| 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..(vba) |
| NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (vba) |
|
Filing 10
MEMORANDUM & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes the Eastern District of New York is not an appropriate venue for this action. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer this case to the Southern District of New York. SEE ATTACHED ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. So Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 11/4/2024. (JC) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 11/6/2024.]
|
| Case transferred to Southern District of New York. Original file, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. ALL FILINGS ARE TO BE MADE IN THE TRANSFER COURT, DO NOT DOCKET TO THIS CASE. (JC) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 11/6/2024.] |
| Filing 9 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint/To Alter Judgment by David Trotman (JC) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 11/6/2024.] |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement - Leave to File an Amended Complaint by David M. Trotman. (JC) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 11/6/2024.] |
| Filing 7 MOTION to Alter Judgment by David M. Trotman. (JC) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 11/6/2024.] |
| Filing 6 Letter from David Trotman dtd 9/13/2024 in response to 9/3/2024 ORDER denying 2 Motion regarding case. (JC) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 11/6/2024.] |
|
ORDER denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.Before the Court is the application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") filed by David Trotman ("laintiff"), acting pro se, together with his seventh IFP complaint filed in this Court. (See ECF Nos. 1-2; see also 18-CV-02180(GRB)(LB) Trotman v. DeMarco, et al.; 18-CV-02481(KAM)(LB) Trotman v. Dr. Jay Bock, et al.; 18-CV-02711(GRB)(LB) Trotman v. Sposato, et al.; 18-CV-03577(GRB)(LB) Trotman v. DeMarco, et al.; 18-CV-07469(GRB)(LB) Trotman v. Doe, et al.; 19-CV-03788(GRB)(LB) Trotman v. Officer Garrett). In addition to these cases, Plaintiff's lengthy litigation history in other districts has revealed that he has already been barred from proceeding IFP having accumulated "three strikes" and having failed to satisfy the "imminent danger" exception to the three strikes rule. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(g); see 9:22-CV-1268(BKS)(CFH) Trotman v. McCoy, et al. (N.D.N.Y., ECF No. 12) (denying IFP status finding that, of Plaintiff's 27 civil rights actions and appeals filed in the Second and Fourth Circuits since 2017, at least the following actions are strikes: 18-CV-7469(GRB)(LB) Trotman v. John Doe, et al., Mem. & Order, ECF No. 49 (E.D.N.Y. June 15, 2022) (dismissing civil rights action, with prejudice, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)); 22-1496 Trotman v. Doe, et al., ECF No. 41, Second Circuit Mandate issued Dec. 22, 2022 dismissing appeal as lacking an arguable basis in law or in fact, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)); 19-CV-3788(GRB)(LB) Trotman v. Herod, et al., Mem. & Order, ECF No. 76 (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 15, 2022) (dismissing civil rights action, with prejudice, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)); Trotman v. Herod, et al., No. 22-1497, ECF No. 45, Second Circuit Mandate issued Dec. 22, 2022 (dismissing appeal as lacking an arguable basis in law or in fact, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)); and Trotman v. Riley, et al., No. 6:19-CV-6876, Order, ECF No. 10 (W.D.N.Y. June 8, 2020) (dismissing civil rights action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). Having accumulated at least three strikes, Plaintiff is precluded from proceeding IFP unless he qualifies for the "imminent danger" exception. "Congress enacted the 'imminent danger' exception as a 'safety valve' to prevent impending harms to prisoners otherwise barred from proceeding IFP. Malik v. McGinnis, 293F.3d 559, 563 (2d Cir. 2002). '[F]or a prisoner to qualify for the imminent danger exception, the danger must be present when he files his complaintin other words, a three-strikes litigant is not excepted from the filing fee if he alleges a danger that has dissipated by the time a complaint is filed.'" 9:22-CV-1268(BKS)(CFH) Trotman v. McCoy, et al. (N.D.N.Y., ECF No. 12) (quoting Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 296 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); also citing Polanco v. Hopkins, 510 F.3d 152, 155 (2d Cir. 2007) (imminent danger claims must be evaluated at the time the complaint is filed, rather than at the time of the events alleged). Here, the present complaint, though difficult to comprehend and decipher, appears to challenge the conditions of his confinement during the period August 11, 2023 through June 26, 2024 (Compl., 26-27, 31, 34, 36, 38-44, 48, 50-52, 61.) Wholly absent are any allegations of any present danger - - much less imminent - - such that Plaintiff may benefit from the "imminent danger" exception. Thus, Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP is denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) because Plaintiff has three "strikes" and is not entitled to the "imminent danger" exception. This action shall be DISMISSED unless, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Electronic Order, Plaintiff pays the Court's filing fee of $405.00 in full; and it is further ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Electronic Order, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this action, without prejudice, without further order of this Court. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Electronic Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this Electronic Order on the Plaintiff at his address of record in an enveloped marked "Legal Mail" and shall record such mailing on the docket. Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 9/3/2024. (JP) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 11/6/2024.]
|
| Filing 5 Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link: #https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf (LF) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 11/6/2024.] |
| Filing 4 Notice of Related Cases: 18-cv-02180-GRB-LB; 18-cv-02481-KAM-LB; 19-cv-03788-GRB-LB; 18-cv-07469-GRB-LB; 18-cv-03577-GRB-LB; 18-cv-02711-GRB-LB; 18-cv-02481-KAM-LB; 18-cv-02180-GRB-LB The Case was directly assigned as a related Pro Se/Habeas Case. (LF) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 11/6/2024.] |
| Filing 3 Prisoner Authorization (LF) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 11/6/2024.] |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by David M. Trotman. (LF) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 11/6/2024.] |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Captain, Jane Doe, Greivence Coordinator Officer, Lewis, Officer, Officer on post April 2 otu 2024 O.G.V.V, Officer on post March 7th 2024 O.B. CC, Officer on post May 8th 2024 Q.C.V.C., Officer on post in the control tower SB May 8th 2024 GRVC, Rodriguez, Staff that authorized fictional reports on January 5th 2024, Warden of DOC NYC Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes,, filed by David M. Trotman. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Envelope) (LF) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 11/6/2024.] |
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.
