Avent v. Keybank

S.D. New York

Avent v. Keybank

DecidedMarch 1, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-01287

StatusUnknown

This text of Avent v. Keybank (Avent v. Keybank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Avent v. Keybank, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK REUBEN AVENT, Plaintiff, 21-CV-01287 (CM) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL KEYBANK, et al., Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action, under 42 U.S.C. § 1982, alleging that Defendants — Keybank, the New York State Department of Labor, and employees of both entities — violated his federally protected rights. The Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice for the following reasons. Plaintiff submitted this complaint on February 12, 2021, without paying the relevant fees or requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). On February 18, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a substantially similar complaint, with an IFP application. That case is presently pending under docket number ECF 1:21-CV-01466, 1. As this complaint raises the same claims, no useful purpose would be served by litigating this duplicate lawsuit. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pending case under docket number 1:21-CV-01466. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as duplicative. 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). SO ORDERED. Dated: March 1, 2021 New York, New York hie. Ib hick Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK REUBEN AVENT, Plaintiff, 21-CV-01287 (CM) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL KEYBANK, et al., Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action, under 42 U.S.C. § 1982, alleging that Defendants — Keybank, the New York State Department of Labor, and employees of both entities — violated his federally protected rights. The Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice for the following reasons. Plaintiff submitted this complaint on February 12, 2021, without paying the relevant fees or requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). On February 18, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a substantially similar complaint, with an IFP application. That case is presently pending under docket number ECF 1:21-CV-01466, 1. As this complaint raises the same claims, no useful purpose would be served by litigating this duplicate lawsuit. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pending case under docket number 1:21-CV-01466. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as duplicative. 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). SO ORDERED. Dated: March 1, 2021 New York, New York hie. Ib hick Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Avent v. Keybank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avent-v-keybank-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack