Humbach v. Canon et al
| Miriam Humbach |
| Daniel Canon, James M. Dumser, Michael Kirsch, Barbara Zanato, Debbie Alspach, Kathleen Campanaro, Deborah Lenaghan, Eileen Kelly, Lisa Tighe, Chiappone, Marisa Boniella, Joseph Kearns, D.P. Corrado, Ernesto Giraldez and James Infantino |
| 7:2013cv02512 |
| April 12, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| New York |
| Nelson Stephen Roman |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
236
OPINION & ORDER re: 224 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by D.P. Corrado, Daniel Canon, Ernesto Giraldez, Chiappone, James M. Dumser. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(3), that any appeal of this Opinion would not be taken in good faith. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motion at ECF No. 224, enter judgment for Defendants, and close this case. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Opinion to Plaintiff at her address on the docket and to show proof of service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 3/26/2019) (rj) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
152
OPINION & ORDER re: 84 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Miriam Humbach. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Court respectfully directs the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 84. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 6/30/2016) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)
|
|
Filing
81
OPINION & ORDER re: 56 MOTION to Dismiss filed by D.P. Corrado, Daniel Canon, Ernesto Giraldez, Chiappone, James M. Dumser, 78 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint filed by James Infantino, 70 MOTION to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Joseph Kearns, Deborah Lenaghan, Debbie Alspach, Barbara Zanato, Marisa Boniella, Lisa Tighe, Eileen Kelly, Michael Kirsch, Kathleen Campanaro. For the reasons stated above, defendant I nfantinos motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety and all claims against Infantino are hereby dismissed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate James Infantino from the action, and to terminate the motion at docket number 78. Likewise, the motion of defendants Michael Kirsch, Barbara Zanato, Debbie Alspach, Kathleen Campanaro, Deborah Lenaghan, Eileen Kelly, Lisa Tighe, Marisa Boniella, and Joseph Kearns is GRANTED in its entirety, and all claims against those defendants are hereby dismissed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate those defendants from the action, and to terminate the motion at docket number 70. Finally, the motion of defendants Daniel Canon, James M. Dumser, Robert Chiappone, D.P. Corrado, and Ernesto Giraldez is GRANTED in part, dismissing the malicious prosecution and entrapment claims against them, and DENIED in part, permitting the excessive force and false arrest claims to proceed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requ ested to terminate the motion at docket number 56. The Police Defendants shall serve and file their answer to the complaint on or before December 3, 2014. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 11/12/2014) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)
|
|
Filing
79
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 48) and subsequent submissions (dkt. nos. 53 and 54) fail to present controlling decisions or data the Court overlooked. Rather, Plaintiff recapitulates arguments previously ma de, namely, that difficulties associated with Plaintiff's incarceration (e.g., limited access to writing instruments and resources) preclude Plaintiff from appropriately prosecuting the instant case. The Court's prior ruling denying Plainti ff's motion to stay this action considered those arguments and found them to be unpersuasive. Instead, the Court finds currency in Defendants' position that countless inmates in substantially-identical circumstances routinely prosecute Sec tion 1983 cases pro se. The limitations Plaintiff may face while incarcerated are not unique, and, barring something more, the Court is not willing to stay this action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion and will allow the matter to proceed apace. The Court will issue a decision on the pending motions to dismiss in the ordinary course. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 10/29/2014) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)
|
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.
