Muzumala v. The City of New York

S.D. New York

Muzumala v. The City of New York

DecidedJanuary 10, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-08423

StatusUnknown

This text of Muzumala v. The City of New York (Muzumala v. The City of New York) 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

Muzumala v. The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSHUA MUZUMALA, Plaintiff, 22-CV-8423 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his federally protected rights. By order dated October 12, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. Plaintiff has filed: (1) a motion “for the Court to enjoin service to the Defendants by the United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court”; (2) a declaration; and (3) and a motion to amend his complaint. (ECF 5-7.) The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint but denies his motion for issuance of summonses, without prejudice to renewal after Plaintiff files his amended complaint. CONCLUSION Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 22-CV- 8423 (LTS). No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order, the Court will treat the original complaint as the operative pleading. 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 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: January 10, 2023 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN 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 JOSHUA MUZUMALA, Plaintiff, 22-CV-8423 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his federally protected rights. By order dated October 12, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. Plaintiff has filed: (1) a motion “for the Court to enjoin service to the Defendants by the United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court”; (2) a declaration; and (3) and a motion to amend his complaint. (ECF 5-7.) The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint but denies his motion for issuance of summonses, without prejudice to renewal after Plaintiff files his amended complaint. CONCLUSION Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 22-CV- 8423 (LTS). No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order, the Court will treat the original complaint as the operative pleading. 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 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: January 10, 2023 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Muzumala v. The City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muzumala-v-the-city-of-new-york-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack