Ramos v. New York City Police Department

S.D. New York

Ramos v. New York City Police Department

DecidedNovember 4, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-08348

StatusUnknown

This text of Ramos v. New York City Police Department (Ramos v. New York City Police Department) 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

Ramos v. New York City Police Department, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAVON EUGENE RAMOS, Plaintiff, -against- 24-CV-8348 (LTS) NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF BRONX ORDER OF DISMISSAL COURTS; NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION SECURITY DEPARTMENT, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he has been unconstitutionally detained since May 15, 2024. For the following reasons, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has previously submitted to this court a substantially similar complaint against the same Defendants arising out of the same events. That case is pending under docket number 24-CV-8340. Because this complaint raises the same claims, 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 24-CV-8340. 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 24-CV-8340. 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 Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 4, 2024 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 JAVON EUGENE RAMOS, Plaintiff, -against- 24-CV-8348 (LTS) NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF BRONX ORDER OF DISMISSAL COURTS; NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION SECURITY DEPARTMENT, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he has been unconstitutionally detained since May 15, 2024. For the following reasons, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has previously submitted to this court a substantially similar complaint against the same Defendants arising out of the same events. That case is pending under docket number 24-CV-8340. Because this complaint raises the same claims, 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 24-CV-8340. 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 24-CV-8340. 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 Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 4, 2024 New York, New York

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ramos v. New York City Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-new-york-city-police-department-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack