Corraro v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center et al
| Raimy Corraro |
| Mayor Eric Adams, Otis Bantum Correctional Center, The City of New York and Lynelle Maginley-Liddie |
| 1:2024cv09604 |
| December 12, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Laura Taylor Swain |
| Prisoner: Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 30, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MAILING RECEIPT: Document No: 6. Mailed to: Raimy Corraro B&C:241230062 Otis Bantum Correctional Facility 1600 Hazen Street E. Elmhurst, NY 11370. (anc) |
| MAILING RECEIPT: Document No: 5,6. Mailed to: Raimy Corraro B&C:241230062 Otis Bantum Correctional Facility 1600 Hazen Street E. Elmhurst, NY 11370. (anc) |
Filing 6
CIVIL JUDGMENT that for the reasons stated in the January 27, 2025, order, this action is dismissed. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Court's judgment would not be taken in good faith. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/29/2025) (Attachments: #1 Appeal Package) (tp)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER OF DISMISSAL By order dated December 17, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff, within thirty days, to submit a completed request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP application) and prisoner authorization or pay the $405.00 in fees required to file a civil action in this court. That order specified that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint. On January 21, 2025, the Court received notification from the U.S. Postal Service that the December 17, 2024 order was undeliverable. Plaintiff has not filed an IFP application and prisoner authorization, paid the fees, or otherwise communicated with the court. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. 1914, 1915. 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, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/27/2025) (ar) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
| Received returned mail re: #3 Standing Order re Cases Filed By Pro Se Plaintiffs,. Mail was addressed to Raimy Corraro at Otis Bantum Correctional Facility 1600 Hazen Street E. Elmhurst, NY 11370 and was returned for the following reason(s): need inmate book and case or nysid #. (yv) |
| MAILING RECEIPT: Document No: 2. Mailed to: Raimy Corraro B&C:241230062 Otis Bantum Correctional Facility 1600 Hazen Street E. Elmhurst, NY 11370. (ak) |
| MAILING RECEIPT: Document No: 4. Mailed to: Raimy Corraro B&C:241230062 Otis Bantum Correctional Facility 1600 Hazen Street E. Elmhurst, NY 11370. |
| MAILING RECEIPT: Document No: 3. Mailed to: Raimy Corraro B&C:241230062 Otis Bantum Correctional Facility 1600 Hazen Street E. Elmhurst, NY 11370. (ak) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR IFP APPLICATION & PRISONER AUTHORIZATION: Plaintiff is directed to render payment of the filing fee or submit an IFP application & Prisoner Authorization 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 1/16/2025. In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Application due by 1/16/2025. Prisoner Authorization Form due by 1/16/2025. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/17/2024) (sac)
|
|
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 03/18/2024) (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. (sac) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER TO SEVER AND OPEN NEW CIVIL ACTIONS re: #1 Complaint. The Court severs the claims of all plaintiffs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Brandon L. Griffith will proceed as the sole plaintiff in this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to open a separate civil action with a new docket number for each of the 62 plaintiffs listed on pages five and six of this order. A copy of the complaint (ECF No. 1) and this order shall be docketed in each new case. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to each of the plaintiffs at the following address: Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, 1600 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, New York, 11370. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/12/2024) (sac)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Eric Adams, Lynelle Maginley-Liddie, Otis Bantum Correctional Center, The City of New York. Document filed by Raimy Corraro. (sac) |
| Case Designated ECF. (sac) |
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 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.
