Lewis v. Ellen et al
| Regina Lewis |
| Ellen, Franqui and Marlow Seneor |
| 7:2017cv08101 |
| October 19, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Kenneth M. Karas |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
129
ORDER: Regina Lewis ("Plaintiff") has submitted a letter to the Court requesting to reopen thisAction. (See Letter from Regina Lewis to Court ("Lewis Letter") (January 19, 2023) (Dkt. No.128).) The Court dismissed Plaintiff' ;s case with prejudice pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 37 on July13, 2021 because of Plaintiff's refusal to comply with her discovery obligations and her abusivebehavior toward other litigants and the Court. (See Order ("Dismissal Order") ( Dkt. No.124).) Plaintiff appealed that dismissal to the Second Circuit (see Not. of Appeal (Dkt. No.125)), and the Second Circuit dismissed her appeal because, based on orders issued in priorappeals she had filed, she was required to seek the Second Circuit's leave before filing a newappeal but failed to do so. (See Dkt. No. 127.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's request toreopen her case is denied. As further set forth in this order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 1/27/2023) (ks)
|
|
Filing
124
ORDER granting 112 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants Motion is granted. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion, (Dkt. No. 112), terminate Plaintiffs putative motion to disqualify the Court, (Dkt. No. 111), close this case, and mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 6/3/21) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
107
ORDER: As noted in Defendants' July 17, 2020 letter, (see Dkt. No. 101), Defendants served Plaintiff with their first set of interrogatories on July 1, 2020. Plaintiff is entitled to pursue discovery as well, and should feel free to confer wi th the Pro Se Office in doing so. The Court adopts the following schedule for such discovery: All document requests and interrogatories are due by August 31, 2020. All depositions are to be completed by November 30, 2020. Discovery is to be comple ted by December 1, 2020. Premotion letters are due December 15, 2020, and responsive letters are due December 29, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Deposition due by 11/30/2020., Discovery due by 12/1/2020.) (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 7/31/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
89
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion To Dismiss is partially granted and partially denied. Plaintiff may proceed with a claim for administration of unwanted medical treatment against Marlow based on the September 6, 2017 incident. Similarly, Plaintiff may proceed with a claim for excessive use of force against Campbell based on the November 2017incident involving Plaintiff and Shaw. All other claims, including any official capacity claims and all claims again st Huebner, Franqui and Wallace, are dismissed. Because this is the first adjudication on the merits of Plaintiff's claims, the dismissals are without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to file a third amended complaint, Plaintiff must do so within 30 days of the date of this Opinion & Order. Plaintiff should include within that thirdamended complaint all changes to correct the deficiencies identified in this Opinion & Order that Plaintiff wishes the Court to consider. Plaintiff is advised that the third amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the SAC. The third amended complaint must contain all of the claims, factual allegations, and exhibits that Plaintiff wishes the Court to consider. If Plaintiff fails to abide by the 30-day d eadline, the dismissed claims may be dismissed with prejudice, and the Action will proceed on the remaining claims.The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion, (Dkt. No. 72), as well as Plaintiffs purported "Motion for Summary Judgment," (Dkt. No. 76)). The Clerk is also requested to mail a copy of this Opinion & Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 3/16/2020) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
46
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion To Revoke Plaintiff's IFP Status and To Dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Because Plaintiff is no longer in custody, should Plaintiff wish to re-file this Action, Plaintiff must, within 30 days of the date of this Order, either pay the appropriate filing fee or submit an IFP application demonstrating that Plaintiff is unable to do so. See Liner v. Fischer, No. 1 1-CV-6711, 2014 WL 2880020, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2014) (noting that the plaintiff could either "pay the filing fee" or "file an IFP application..., just as any other non- incarcerated litigant (not being subject to the three strik es provision)... would be eligible to do" (citations omitted)), adopted by 2014 WL 5438037 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2014). If Plaintiff fails to abide by this 30-day deadline, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is respectfully dir ected to terminate the pending Motion, (see Dkt. No. 37), and to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 3/18/2019) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
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.
