Logan v. Matveevskii et al

Logan v. Matveevskii et al

Case Number:	7:2010cv09247
Filed:	December 2, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	White Plains Office
Presiding Judge:	Kenneth M. Karas
Presiding Judge:	George A. Yanthis
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Accommodations
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 30, 2016	Filing 128 OPINION & ORDER re: 111 MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint. filed by Irina Matveevskii, Tuckahoe Housing Authority, Tuckahoe Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Mark Kamensky, Jeff Zuckerman. Plaintiff's TAC is dismissed in its entirety. Because this is Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, the dismissal is with prejudice. See, e.g., Denny v. Barber, 576 F.2d 465, 471 (2d Cir. 1978) (holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to "a third go-aro und"); Anthony v. Brockway, No. 15-CV-451, 2015 WL 5773402, at 3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2015) (dismissing amended complaint with prejudice where the "[p]laintiff has already been given one opportunity to amend his complaint..., and there is nothing in his second amended complaint suggesting that [he] could do better given another opportunity"); Al-Qadaffi v. Servs. for the Underserved (SUS), No. 13-CV-8193, 2015 WL 585801, at 8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2015) (denying leave to amend w here "[the plaintiff] has already had one chance to amend his [c]omplaint, and there is still no indication that a valid claim might be stated if given a second chance"), aff'd, F. App'x, 2016 WL 320938 (2d Cir. Jan. 27, 2016); Bui v. Indus. Enters. of Am., Inc., 594 F. Supp. 2d 364, 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (dismissing an amended complaint with prejudice where the plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies identified in his complaint despite "being given ample opportunit y to do so"); cf. Treppel v. Biovail Corp., No. 03-CV-3002, 2005 WL 2086339, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2005) (declining to grant leave to amend upon dismissing a complaint, "because [the] plaintiff has already had two bites at the apple[,] and they have proven fruitless"'). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion, (see Dkt. No. 111) and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 3/30/16) (yv)
September 29, 2014	Filing 93 OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the THA Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to Plaintiff's reasonable-accommodation claims under the FHA, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. Any other claims that Pl aintiff may be attempting to assert against the THA Defendants are dismissed without prejudice, for the reasons set forth in this Opinion. Additionally, the HUD Defendants' Motion To Dismiss is also granted. Any claims that Plaintiff may be a ttempting to assert against the United States, as the party properly substituted for the HUD Defendants pursuant to the FTCA, are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the issuance of this Opi nion, which Complaint may address the deficiencies that the Court has identified. Given that the Court has already granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint once, and that the Court has granted summary judgment on the claims that appear to have been at the heart of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, should Plaintiff fail to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the issuance of this Opinion, or should whatever claims Plaintiff chooses to assert in a Second Amended Complaint be deficient for the same reasons described in this Opinion, the Court may dismiss any federal claims that Plaintiff asserts with prejudice. See McGee v. Pallito, No. 10-CV-11, 2014 WL 360289, at 12 (D. Vt. Feb. 3, 2014) (noting that "[t]he Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts should not dismiss pro se complaints with prejudice without granting leave to amend at least once" (emphasis added)); Duren v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 12-CV-298, 2013 WL 5406443, at 2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013) (dismissing pro se plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice). Additionally, should Plaintiff choose to file a Second Amended Complaint, he is respectfully requested to clearly state the sources of law on which the claims that he asserts therein are based, and to limit his factual allegations to a reasonable length. While the Court will not impose a page limit, Plaintiff should keep in mind that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure req uires only "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction," "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," and "a demand for the relief sought,&q uot; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (emphasis added), and that the Second Circuit has suggested that a district court has the "power to dismiss a... complaint without leave to amend... where leave to amend has previously been given and the successive plead ings remain prolix and unintelligible," Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988); see also Fisch v. Consulate Gen. of Republic of Poland, Nos. 11-CV-4182, 11-CV-4183, 2011 WL 3847398, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2011) (noting that &qu ot;prolix, unintelligible, speculative complaints that are argumentative, disjointed and needlessly ramble have routinely been dismissed in [the Second] Circuit" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Should Plaintiff choose to file a Second Amended Complaint, Defendants will be given 20 days either to answer the operative complaint or to file a pre-motion letter. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motions. (See Dkt. Nos. 56, 61.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 9/29/2014) (lnl)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 30, 2016

Filing 128 OPINION & ORDER re: 111 MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint. filed by Irina Matveevskii, Tuckahoe Housing Authority, Tuckahoe Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Mark Kamensky, Jeff Zuckerman. Plaintiff's TAC is dismissed in its entirety. Because this is Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, the dismissal is with prejudice. See, e.g., Denny v. Barber, 576 F.2d 465, 471 (2d Cir. 1978) (holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to "a third go-aro und"); Anthony v. Brockway, No. 15-CV-451, 2015 WL 5773402, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2015) (dismissing amended complaint with prejudice where the "[p]laintiff has already been given one opportunity to amend his complaint..., and there is nothing in his second amended complaint suggesting that [he] could do better given another opportunity"); Al-Qadaffi v. Servs. for the Underserved (SUS), No. 13-CV-8193, 2015 WL 585801, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2015) (denying leave to amend w here "[the plaintiff] has already had one chance to amend his [c]omplaint, and there is still no indication that a valid claim might be stated if given a second chance"), aff'd, F. App'x, 2016 WL 320938 (2d Cir. Jan. 27, 2016); Bui v. Indus. Enters. of Am., Inc., 594 F. Supp. 2d 364, 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (dismissing an amended complaint with prejudice where the plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies identified in his complaint despite "being given ample opportunit y to do so"); cf. Treppel v. Biovail Corp., No. 03-CV-3002, 2005 WL 2086339, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2005) (declining to grant leave to amend upon dismissing a complaint, "because [the] plaintiff has already had two bites at the apple[,] and they have proven fruitless"'). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion, (see Dkt. No. 111) and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 3/30/16) (yv)

September 29, 2014

Filing 93 OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the THA Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to Plaintiff's reasonable-accommodation claims under the FHA, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. Any other claims that Pl aintiff may be attempting to assert against the THA Defendants are dismissed without prejudice, for the reasons set forth in this Opinion. Additionally, the HUD Defendants' Motion To Dismiss is also granted. Any claims that Plaintiff may be a ttempting to assert against the United States, as the party properly substituted for the HUD Defendants pursuant to the FTCA, are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the issuance of this Opi nion, which Complaint may address the deficiencies that the Court has identified. Given that the Court has already granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint once, and that the Court has granted summary judgment on the claims that appear to have been at the heart of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, should Plaintiff fail to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the issuance of this Opinion, or should whatever claims Plaintiff chooses to assert in a Second Amended Complaint be deficient for the same reasons described in this Opinion, the Court may dismiss any federal claims that Plaintiff asserts with prejudice. See McGee v. Pallito, No. 10-CV-11, 2014 WL 360289, at *12 (D. Vt. Feb. 3, 2014) (noting that "[t]he Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts should not dismiss pro se complaints with prejudice without granting leave to amend at least once" (emphasis added)); Duren v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 12-CV-298, 2013 WL 5406443, at * 2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013) (dismissing pro se plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice). Additionally, should Plaintiff choose to file a Second Amended Complaint, he is respectfully requested to clearly state the sources of law on which the claims that he asserts therein are based, and to limit his factual allegations to a reasonable length. While the Court will not impose a page limit, Plaintiff should keep in mind that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure req uires only "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction," "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," and "a demand for the relief sought,&q uot; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (emphasis added), and that the Second Circuit has suggested that a district court has the "power to dismiss a... complaint without leave to amend... where leave to amend has previously been given and the successive plead ings remain prolix and unintelligible," Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988); see also Fisch v. Consulate Gen. of Republic of Poland, Nos. 11-CV-4182, 11-CV-4183, 2011 WL 3847398, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2011) (noting that &qu ot;prolix, unintelligible, speculative complaints that are argumentative, disjointed and needlessly ramble have routinely been dismissed in [the Second] Circuit" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Should Plaintiff choose to file a Second Amended Complaint, Defendants will be given 20 days either to answer the operative complaint or to file a pre-motion letter. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motions. (See Dkt. Nos. 56, 61.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 9/29/2014) (lnl)

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 this case: Logan v. Matveevskii et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| 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?