Vann v. Sudranski

S.D. New York

Vann v. Sudranski

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 12, 2019·No. 7:16-cv-07367·Unknown

Opinion

4 GS. vd WemcuM LED \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ERLECE MORTCALL ES Pee SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK pout Nim fa 2h qi ence □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ | GATE PALIN fon bof KOURIOCKEIN VANN, : caee guengat Sum

Plaintiff, : ORDER CORRECTION OFFICER Y. SUDRANSKI 16 CV 7367 (VB) and LIEUTENANT S. HANN, Defendants, : tt Ok tt On October 29, 2019, plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a “motion to compel discovery & request for adverse inference & spoliation.” (Doc. #152). Plaintiff alleges defendants have not demonstrated a good-faith reason for failing to retain documents—specifically, certain log book entries for July 12, 2015. The Court need not await a response to the instant motion, which is duplicative and meritless. Accordingly, the motion (Doc. #152) is DENIED. The discovery issues respecting the instant motion have already been considered and resolved. (See Doc. #135) (“In light of the response from the Assistant Attorney General dated May 29, 2019, the undersigned is satisfied that Plaintiff has received that to which he is entitled. The request for further discovery in this regard is denied.”). Moreover, the same issues were considered and resolved a second time during the July 30, 2019, pre-motion conference before the Court. During the conference, defense counsel notified the Court and plaintiff that the log book entries plaintiff seeks simply do not exist, nor did they at any time. Plaintiff is reminded that his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment remains due November 29, 2019. 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 the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion (Doc. #152).

The Clerk further is instructed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. Dated: November 12, 2019 White Plains, NY SO ut (f Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

4 GS. vd WemcuM LED \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ERLECE MORTCALL ES Pee SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK pout Nim fa 2h qi ence □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ | GATE PALIN fon bof KOURIOCKEIN VANN, : caee guengat Sum

Plaintiff, : ORDER CORRECTION OFFICER Y. SUDRANSKI 16 CV 7367 (VB) and LIEUTENANT S. HANN, Defendants, : tt Ok tt On October 29, 2019, plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a “motion to compel discovery & request for adverse inference & spoliation.” (Doc. #152). Plaintiff alleges defendants have not demonstrated a good-faith reason for failing to retain documents—specifically, certain log book entries for July 12, 2015. The Court need not await a response to the instant motion, which is duplicative and meritless. Accordingly, the motion (Doc. #152) is DENIED. The discovery issues respecting the instant motion have already been considered and resolved. (See Doc. #135) (“In light of the response from the Assistant Attorney General dated May 29, 2019, the undersigned is satisfied that Plaintiff has received that to which he is entitled. The request for further discovery in this regard is denied.”). Moreover, the same issues were considered and resolved a second time during the July 30, 2019, pre-motion conference before the Court. During the conference, defense counsel notified the Court and plaintiff that the log book entries plaintiff seeks simply do not exist, nor did they at any time. Plaintiff is reminded that his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment remains due November 29, 2019. 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 the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion (Doc. #152).

The Clerk further is instructed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. Dated: November 12, 2019 White Plains, NY SO ut (f Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge

Vann v. Sudranski, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Pincite

Vann v. Sudranski (Vann v. Sudranski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related