Williams v. John

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedMarch 1, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-09583
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. John (Williams v. John) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. John, (E.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------X RONALD WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, ORDER No. 23-CV-9583 (PKC) (TAM) -against-

POLICE OFFICER TOTO JOHN, POLICE OFFICER DELRIORE, PETER F. VALLONE, JR., Acting Judge of Supreme Court, QUEENS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:

On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff Ronald Williams (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, filed this action. (Dkt. 1.) Although Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Dkt. 2), he did not file a Prisoner Authorization form, which is required when seeking IFP status. On January 2, 2024, the Clerk’s Office notified Plaintiff of this deficiency and provided him with a Prisoner Authorization form. (Dkt. 3 (the “Notice of Deficient Filing”).) The Clerk’s Office instructed Plaintiff that in order to proceed with this action, he must return the Prisoner Authorization form within 14 days of receipt of the Notice of Deficient Filing. (Id.) Instead, the Court received a Prisoner Authorization form from Plaintiff bearing a case number that belonged to another court. (See 2/1/2024 Docket Order.) The document was returned to Plaintiff, along with a new Prisoner Authorization form, on January 25, 2024. (Id.) On February 1, 2024, the Court extended the time for Plaintiff to file the Prisoner Authorization form to February 15, 2024. (Id.) The Court did not receive the Prisoner Authorization form. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his new address. When Plaintiff filed this action, he was incarcerated at Mid-State Correctional Facility, (see Dkt. 1 at 2), and he has not notified the Court otherwise. However, in another action, Plaintiff informed the Court that he is incarcerated at Mohawk Correctional Facility. See Williams v. Hilton, No. 23-CV-8955 (PKC), ECF No. 5 at 1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2024).

In light of Plaintiff’s changed address and pro se status, the Court extends the time to comply with the Notice of Deficient Filing for a second time. In order to proceed with this action, Plaintiff must return his completed Prisoner Authorization form by April 1, 2024. No further extension will be granted without good cause shown. No response is required by Defendants at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order within the time allowed, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies IFP status for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to re-send the Prisoner Authorization form to Plaintiff along with this Order and to update Plaintiff’s address on the docket to Ronald Williams, No. 23-R-0092, Mohawk Correctional Facility, 6514 Rt. 26, P.O. Box 8451, Rome, NY 13442. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Pamela K. Chen Pamela K. Chen United States District Judge

Dated: March 1, 2024 Brooklyn, New York

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. John, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-john-nyed-2024.