Sreedhar v. United States Government

S.D. New York

Sreedhar v. United States Government

DecidedJanuary 28, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-07440

StatusUnknown

This text of Sreedhar v. United States Government (Sreedhar v. United States Government) 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

Sreedhar v. United States Government, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SRIKANTH SREEDHAR, Plaintiff, 24-CV-7440 (LTS) -against- ORDER UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff filed this action pro se. Since the filing of this action, Plaintiff has attempted to communicate with the undersigned by email, recently sending six to seven emails per day. Plaintiff has received email notification that he must communicate with the court by submitting submissions to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, as required under the court’s Standing Order, “In the Matter of Pro Se Litigation,” which provides that “all pro se litigants shall file their papers with the Pro Se Office of this Court.” M10-468 (Oct. 31, 1996). Furthermore, the undersigned’s Individual Practices state that: Pro se parties are directed to submit all filings and communications addressed to Judge Swain, whether related to a case pending before the Court, or to a matter the party wishes to direct to Judge Swain in her capacity as Chief Judge, through the Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. Information about the Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit and how to submit filings to that Unit is available on the Court’s website, at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/prose. Submissions emailed, mailed, or faxed directly to Judge Swain’s chambers by pro se parties may be disregarded. See Individual Practices of Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiff to cease further attempts to contact the undersigned’s chambers by email or any other means than by filing documents with the Pro Se Intake Unit. 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 28, 2025 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 SRIKANTH SREEDHAR, Plaintiff, 24-CV-7440 (LTS) -against- ORDER UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff filed this action pro se. Since the filing of this action, Plaintiff has attempted to communicate with the undersigned by email, recently sending six to seven emails per day. Plaintiff has received email notification that he must communicate with the court by submitting submissions to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, as required under the court’s Standing Order, “In the Matter of Pro Se Litigation,” which provides that “all pro se litigants shall file their papers with the Pro Se Office of this Court.” M10-468 (Oct. 31, 1996). Furthermore, the undersigned’s Individual Practices state that: Pro se parties are directed to submit all filings and communications addressed to Judge Swain, whether related to a case pending before the Court, or to a matter the party wishes to direct to Judge Swain in her capacity as Chief Judge, through the Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. Information about the Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit and how to submit filings to that Unit is available on the Court’s website, at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/prose. Submissions emailed, mailed, or faxed directly to Judge Swain’s chambers by pro se parties may be disregarded. See Individual Practices of Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiff to cease further attempts to contact the undersigned’s chambers by email or any other means than by filing documents with the Pro Se Intake Unit. 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 28, 2025 New York, New York

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sreedhar v. United States Government, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sreedhar-v-united-states-government-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack