Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq.

S.D. New York

Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq.

DecidedJune 22, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-10858

StatusUnknown

This text of Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq. (Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq.) 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

Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq., (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x YI SUN, No. 19 Civ. 10858 (LTS)(SN) Plaintiff,

-against- ORDER

SASLOVSKY, et al.,

Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------x

The Court has received and reviewed in their entireties Plaintiff’s “Verified Petition,” “Notice of Removal to Consolidate and Review,” and letter requesting the Court grant her Petition to “Remove and Consolidate.” (Docket Entry Nos. 42-44.) To the extent Plaintiff requests review by the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the Senate Judiciary Committee of the facts underlying her case before this Court, or requests a special investigation by the same, the requests are improperly directed to this Court. Plaintiff’s request to have the Department of Justice initiate a criminal action is also improperly directed to this Court. This Court cannot grant those requests. Plaintiff may wish to direct applications or communications to those other government entities. The Court construes Plaintiff’s request for removal of her pending cases in this district to “the Courts in Washington D.C.” as a request to transfer venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). That request was previously denied for lack of any proper legal or factual basis by this Court’s orders of August 14, 2019, August 23, 2019, and September 4, 2019, in the related matter described in the instant request, (18-CIV-11002, Docket Entry Nos. 71, 77, 82), and is denied in this matter on the same basis. The Court certifies pursuant to 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 purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444 (1962). This order resolves docket entry number 80.

SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York June 22, 2020

_/s/ Laura Tyalor Swain__ LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN United States District Judge Copy Mailed to: Yi Sun 10 East 116th St. Apt 3A New York, NY 10029

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 -------------------------------------------------------x YI SUN, No. 19 Civ. 10858 (LTS)(SN) Plaintiff,

-against- ORDER

SASLOVSKY, et al.,

Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------x

The Court has received and reviewed in their entireties Plaintiff’s “Verified Petition,” “Notice of Removal to Consolidate and Review,” and letter requesting the Court grant her Petition to “Remove and Consolidate.” (Docket Entry Nos. 42-44.) To the extent Plaintiff requests review by the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the Senate Judiciary Committee of the facts underlying her case before this Court, or requests a special investigation by the same, the requests are improperly directed to this Court. Plaintiff’s request to have the Department of Justice initiate a criminal action is also improperly directed to this Court. This Court cannot grant those requests. Plaintiff may wish to direct applications or communications to those other government entities. The Court construes Plaintiff’s request for removal of her pending cases in this district to “the Courts in Washington D.C.” as a request to transfer venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). That request was previously denied for lack of any proper legal or factual basis by this Court’s orders of August 14, 2019, August 23, 2019, and September 4, 2019, in the related matter described in the instant request, (18-CIV-11002, Docket Entry Nos. 71, 77, 82), and is denied in this matter on the same basis. The Court certifies pursuant to 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 purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444 (1962). This order resolves docket entry number 80.

SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York June 22, 2020

_/s/ Laura Tyalor Swain__ LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN United States District Judge Copy Mailed to: Yi Sun 10 East 116th St. Apt 3A New York, NY 10029

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sun-v-saslovsky-esq-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack