Williams v. NYU Hospital Center Finance & Payroll Support

S.D. New York

Williams v. NYU Hospital Center Finance & Payroll Support

DecidedJanuary 10, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-11612

StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. NYU Hospital Center Finance & Payroll Support (Williams v. NYU Hospital Center Finance & Payroll Support) 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

Williams v. NYU Hospital Center Finance & Payroll Support, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SEAN L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, 19-CV-11612 (CM) -against- ORDER NYU HOSPITAL CENTER FINANCE & PAYROLL SUPPORT, Defendant. COLLEEN MCMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Sean L. Williams, appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP), files this complaint alleging that Defendant unlawfully garnished his wages. Plaintiff attached a document to his complaint that includes: his full Social Security number, the full names of his two minor children, and his full birthdate and the full birthdates of his children. Rule 5.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that Court filings referring to such information include only: the last four digits of a person’s Social Security number, the year of a person’s birth, and the minor’s initials. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(1) - (3). A person who fails to redact such information or file it under seal waives the protections of Rule 5.2 as to his or her own information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(h). Because the attachment reveals the full names and birthdates of Plaintiff’s minor children, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to limit electronic access to the complaint (ECF No. 2) to a “case-participant only” basis. Plaintiff must comply with Rule 5.2(a)(3) when submitting any documents in the future. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. 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 IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 10, 2020 ‘ New York, New York hi hb Hk 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 SEAN L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, 19-CV-11612 (CM) -against- ORDER NYU HOSPITAL CENTER FINANCE & PAYROLL SUPPORT, Defendant. COLLEEN MCMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Sean L. Williams, appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP), files this complaint alleging that Defendant unlawfully garnished his wages. Plaintiff attached a document to his complaint that includes: his full Social Security number, the full names of his two minor children, and his full birthdate and the full birthdates of his children. Rule 5.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that Court filings referring to such information include only: the last four digits of a person’s Social Security number, the year of a person’s birth, and the minor’s initials. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(1) - (3). A person who fails to redact such information or file it under seal waives the protections of Rule 5.2 as to his or her own information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(h). Because the attachment reveals the full names and birthdates of Plaintiff’s minor children, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to limit electronic access to the complaint (ECF No. 2) to a “case-participant only” basis. Plaintiff must comply with Rule 5.2(a)(3) when submitting any documents in the future. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. 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 IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 10, 2020 ‘ New York, New York hi hb Hk Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. NYU Hospital Center Finance & Payroll Support, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-nyu-hospital-center-finance-payroll-support-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack