Perry v. Robles

S.D. New York

Perry v. Robles

DecidedSeptember 21, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-07696

StatusUnknown

This text of Perry v. Robles (Perry v. Robles) 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

Perry v. Robles, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KAHREEM PERRY, Plaintiff, 23-CV-7696 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL DAVID ROBLES; YVETTE AGOSTO, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Defendants abused the judicial process, and as a result, he was arrested. For the following reasons, the complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff has previously submitted to this court the same complaint against Defendants, alleging the same allegations. That case is pending before the Court under docket number 23- CV-7492 (LTS). Because this newly filed complaint raises the same claims as raised in the 23- CV-7492 action, no useful purpose would be served by the filing and litigation of this duplicate lawsuit. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pending case under docket number 23-CV-7492. In light of the Court’s belief that Plaintiff may have submitted this duplicate complaint in error, the Court directs the Clerk of Court not to charge Plaintiff the $350.00 filing fee for this action, and the Warden or Superintendent having custody of Plaintiff shall not deduct or encumber funds from Plaintiff’s prison trust account for this lawsuit. CONCLUSOIN The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint as duplicative of Perry v. Robles, No. 23-CV- 7492. The Court directs the Clerk of Court not to charge Plaintiff the $350.00 filing fee for this action. 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). The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this action. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 21, 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 KAHREEM PERRY, Plaintiff, 23-CV-7696 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL DAVID ROBLES; YVETTE AGOSTO, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Defendants abused the judicial process, and as a result, he was arrested. For the following reasons, the complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff has previously submitted to this court the same complaint against Defendants, alleging the same allegations. That case is pending before the Court under docket number 23- CV-7492 (LTS). Because this newly filed complaint raises the same claims as raised in the 23- CV-7492 action, no useful purpose would be served by the filing and litigation of this duplicate lawsuit. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pending case under docket number 23-CV-7492. In light of the Court’s belief that Plaintiff may have submitted this duplicate complaint in error, the Court directs the Clerk of Court not to charge Plaintiff the $350.00 filing fee for this action, and the Warden or Superintendent having custody of Plaintiff shall not deduct or encumber funds from Plaintiff’s prison trust account for this lawsuit. CONCLUSOIN The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint as duplicative of Perry v. Robles, No. 23-CV- 7492. The Court directs the Clerk of Court not to charge Plaintiff the $350.00 filing fee for this action. 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). The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this action. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 21, 2023 New York, New York

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Perry v. Robles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-robles-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack