Paynes El-Bey v. ADT Security Services, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 20, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-05211·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK QUEEN PRINYAH GODIAH P. PAYNES EL- BEY, Plaintiff, 21-CV-5211 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: By order dated April 18, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within 30 days. That order specified that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the amended complaint. Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint. Accordingly, the amended complaint, filed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 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 IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: May 20, 2022 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

Paynes El-Bey v. ADT Security Services, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Paynes El-Bey v. ADT Security Services, Inc. (Paynes El-Bey v. ADT Security Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)