| Save 25% on a pre-paid one year subscription. |
|
|
 109 |
Filed: 1/13/2014, Entered: None |
|
|
MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 106 Notice of Appeal filed by Peter W. Lindner USCA Case Number 13-1761. Appellant, pro se, moves for an extension of time, oral argument, and various other relief. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED because it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. See Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 1995) (finding that this Court has "inherent authority" to dismiss an appeal that lacks an arguable basis in law or fact). It is further ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as moot. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 01/13/2014. (nd) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
|
|
 Request |
 |
|
|
| 108 |
Filed: 11/8/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
FIRST LETTER Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet T-1080 Threat on Witness)(Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 106 |
Filed: 4/26/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
NOTICE OF APPEAL from 91 Clerk's Judgment. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. Form D-P is due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (tp) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 105 |
Filed: 4/29/2013, Entered: None |
 |
|
ORDER denying 100 Motion to Correct Judgment; denying 104 Motion for Hearing. As this action has been terminated, the Clerk of Court is instructed not to accept any additional filings from Plaintiff other than those directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Any proposed filing submitted by Plaintiff other than those directed to the Second Circuit are to be returned to Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/29/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (cd) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 104 |
Filed: 4/23/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REQUESTING FULL HEARING & OFFERING BHARARA & HARWOOD LIMITED IMMUNITY FOR COOPERATION. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner.(sc) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 102 |
Filed: 4/19/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Peter Lindner in Opposition re: 97 SECOND MOTION for Reconsideration re; 95 Affidavit in Support of Motion,.SECOND MOTION for Reconsideration re; 95 Affidavit in Support of Motion,.SECOND MOTION for Reconsideration re; 95 Affidavit in Support of Motion,.. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 101 |
Filed: 4/17/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
Letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christopher B. Harwood dated 4/17/2013 re: This Office represents the Federal Defendants in this lawsuit, in which Plaintiff is pursuing pro se claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens. On March 26, 2013, this Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing this case as to both the Federal Defendants and the CSO Defendants. On April 15, 2013, this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff has since filed a document titled, "Motion to USDJ Nathan Regarding AUSA Unsuccessful Intent to Deceive," in which he renews his prior allegations that attorneys is this Office and the USMS have acted unethically in this litigating this case. We write respectfully not because these allegations - which are entirely baseless and which this Court has previously disregarded - merit a response, but because we are uncomfortable allowing such allegations to remain on the docket unanswered. Accordingly, we write only to underscore that we stand behind the positions we have taken in this case and absolutely reject any suggestion of improper conduct. Because this case is now closed, absent a request from the Court, we will not respond to any further filings by Plaintiff. We respectfully request that this letter be docketed. (sac) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 100 |
Filed: 4/16/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
MOTION to Correct Judgment re: 98 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner.(Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 99 |
Filed: 4/16/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
Letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christopher B. Harwood dated 4/16/2013 re: Requesting that my letter to Judge Nathan dated 10/12/2012 be docketed. Document filed by Newell et al. (cd) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 98 |
Filed: 4/15/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
ORDER re 97 Motion for Reconsideration. As a result, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED in its entirety. 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). (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/15/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (cd) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 97 |
Filed: 4/12/2013, Entered: None, Terminated: 4/15/2013 |
|
|
SECOND MOTION for Reconsideration re; 95 Affidavit in Support of Motion,. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Original Doc 95 with notary signature, # 2 Exhibit Attachments 1-3, # 3 Exhibit Attachment 4, # 4 Exhibit Attachment 5, # 5 Exhibit Attachment 6 Part 1 of 2, # 6 Exhibit Attachment 6 Part 2 of 2, # 7 Affidavit Document 92, # 8 Affidavit Doc 92's Third Declaration of USMS Auerbach, # 9 Exhibit Excel Sheet listing Evidence and Hearsay)(Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 96 |
Filed: 4/11/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - AFFIDAVIT of Peter Lindner in Support re: 92 FIRST MOTION for Reconsideration.. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Part 2 of 2 color scan of Lindner sworn notarize affidavit)(Lindner, Peter) Modified on 4/12/2013 (ldi). (Entered: 04/11/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 95 |
Filed: 4/9/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
FILING ERROR - WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU - AFFIDAVIT of Peter Lindner in Support re: 92 FIRST MOTION for Reconsideration.. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachments 1-3, # 2 Exhibit Attachment 4, # 3 Exhibit Attachment 5, # 4 Exhibit Attachment 6 Part 1 of 2, # 5 Exhibit Attachment 6 Part 2 of 2)(Lindner, Peter) Modified on 4/12/2013 (ldi). (Entered: 04/10/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 94 |
Filed: 4/9/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - AFFIDAVIT of Peter Lindner in Support re: 92 FIRST MOTION for Reconsideration.. Document filed by Preet Bharara, D. Disrud, The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First pages of supporting documents given to DOJ OIG)(Lindner, Peter) Modified on 4/12/2013 (ldi). (Entered: 04/09/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 93 |
Filed: 4/9/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
FILING ERROR - WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU - AFFIRMATION of USMS General Counsel Auerbach in Opposition re: 92 FIRST MOTION for Reconsideration.. Document filed by Preet Bharara, The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Doc 40 contradicts Doc 92-1, thus PERJURY)(Lindner, Peter) Modified on 4/12/2013 (ldi). (Entered: 04/09/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 92 |
Filed: 4/9/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
FILING ERROR - WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU - FIRST MOTION for Reconsideration. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Sworn affidavit of USMS General Counsel Auerbach perhaps perjurious to Affidavits 1 and 2, # 2 Exhibit List of items of fact and or hearsay that can be resolved by subpoena)(Lindner, Peter) Modified on 4/12/2013 (ldi). (Entered: 04/09/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 91 |
Filed: 3/27/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
CLERK'S JUDGMENT That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated March 26, 2013, Defendants' motions are granted in their entirety; Plaintiff's FTCA claim against the United States is dismissed without prejudice; all of Plaintiff's other claims are dismissed with prejudice; the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from the Order dated March 26, 2013 would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal; accordingly, the case is closed and all pending motions are denied as moot. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 3/27/13) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal)(ml) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 90 |
Filed: 3/26/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs FTCA claim against the United States is DISMISSED without prejudice. All of Plaintiffs other claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 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). All pending motions are denied as moot and the Clerk of Court is requested to close this case. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/26/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (cd) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 89 |
Filed: 2/22/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
ORDER. Plaintiff's application cannot be granted unless he identifies the document in question, and it is therefore denied. The Clerk of the Court isdirected to terminate the pending motions for docket numbers 78 and 81, and as further set forth. Denying 78 Motion to Seal; Denying 81 Motion to Seal. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on 2/22/2013). Copies Sent By Chambers. (rjm) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 88 |
Filed: 2/8/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
Letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jennie Woltz dated 2/8/13 re: Counsel for the CSO defendants writes to oppose Mr. Lindner's recent request for a pretrial conference for the same reasons articulated in Mr. Harwood's 2/7/13 letter. (mro) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 87 |
Filed: 2/7/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
Letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christopher B. Harwood dated 2/07/2013 re: This Office represents the Federal Defendants in the above-referenced lawsuit, in which Plaintiff is pursuing pro se claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") and Bivens. All defendants (the Federal Defendants and the CSO Defendants) have moved to dismiss the complaint, and briefing on their motions was completed in September 2012. We write respectfully in response to Plaintiff's February 4, 2013 submission (Dkt. 86), in which he seeks an order requiring the parties to meet to address various discovery-related issues. We respectfully submit that such a meeting is unnecessary and inappropriate given the posture of this case. Indeed, Plaintiff's previous requests to pursue discovery prior to the resolution of the parties' fully-dispositive motions to dismiss have been denied. See Dkts. 44, 84. (ama) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 86 |
Filed: 2/4/2013, Entered: None |
|
|
MOTION ON LETTER ADDRESSED TO JUDGE ALISON J. NATHAN DATED 01/29/13;re: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE UNDER ESTOPPEL & EQUITABLE REMEDIES UNDER THE LAW FOR WRONGS; re: for an order that within 14 days by Monday, 02/08/13 the aforementioned parties meet in the SDNY Courthouse etc., and under oath, each party explain the disposition of the video tapes, the inventory of them, their investigation and their testimony etc. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner.(sc) Modified on 2/5/2013 (sc). (Entered: 02/05/2013)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 84 |
Filed: 12/6/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MEMO ENDORSEMENT on: 79 Pre-Conference Request filed by Peter W. Lindner. ENDORSEMENT: Application denied. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on 12/5/12) (cd) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 83 |
Filed: 12/5/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING OF NON-ECF DOCUMENT - RESPONSE in Opposition re: 82 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 79 Pre-Conference Statement misunderstanding of Lindner.. Document filed by Muschitello, Newell, The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY. (Woltz, Jennie) Modified on 12/5/2012 (db). (Entered: 12/05/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 82 |
Filed: 11/30/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 79 Pre-Conference Statement misunderstanding of Lindner. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. Return Date set for 12/14/2012 at 12:01 PM.(Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 81 |
Filed: 11/26/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MOTION to Seal a CM ECF document. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner.(mro) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 80 |
Filed: 11/20/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
PLAINTIFF ALLEGING FEDERAL WITNESS TAMPERING WITH PREPARED TO COMMUNICATE WITH USDJ NATHAN dated Nov. 8, 2012(as listed on page 2). Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (mro) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 79 |
Filed: 11/28/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
FIRST PRE-CONFERENCE STATEMENT re FRCP 16 on 120 day time limit. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner.(Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 78 |
Filed: 11/21/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR SEALING A CM ECF DOCUMENT. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner.(mro) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 77 |
Filed: 11/20/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
PLAINTIFF ALLEGING FEDERAL WITNESS TAMPERING WITH PREPARED TO COMMUNICATE WITH USDJ NATHAN-ERRATA #1. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner.(mro) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 76 |
Filed: 11/26/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
PLAINTIFF ALLEGING FEDERAL WITNESS TAMPERING WITH PREPARED TO COMMUNICATE WITH USDJ NATHAN dated Nov. 11, 2012. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (mro) Modified on 11/27/2012 (mro). (Entered: 11/26/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 75 |
Filed: 11/11/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
AFFIDAVIT of Peter Lindner in Opposition re: 38 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to the Federal Defendants., 35 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Attachments: # 1 Errata DEA should be DEA/ATF, # 2 Affidavit Pages 1-3 of 11 page handwritten affidavit, # 3 Affidavit Pages 4-7 of 11 page handwritten affidavit, # 4 Affidavit Pages 8-11 of 11 page handwritten affidavit)(Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 11/11/2012)
- Attachment 1 Errata DEA should be DEA/ATF
- Attachment 2 Affidavit Pages 1-3 of 11 page handwritten affidavit
- Attachment 3 Affidavit Pages 4-7 of 11 page handwritten affidavit
- Attachment 4 Affidavit Pages 8-11 of 11 page handwritten affidavit
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 73 |
Filed: 9/25/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
AFFIDAVIT WITH NOTARY FOR SEALED COURT HEARING SINCE USMS JANICE TATE DID NOT CHECK WITH USMS OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS,WHICH MAY SHOW FALSE DECLARATION OF USMS DOCUMENT 40 AND 57. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (djc) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 72 |
Filed: 9/25/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
REDACTED AFFIDAVIT of Peter Lindner. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (djc) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 71 |
Filed: 10/15/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
AFFIDAVIT of Peter Lindner in Opposition re: 64 MOTION for Hearing.. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 70 |
Filed: 9/17/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
PLAINTIFF AFFIDAVIT IN ADDITION TO REPLY AGAINST MOTION TO DISMISS. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (jfe) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 69 |
Filed: 9/27/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
Letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Peter W. Lindner, dated 9/25/2012, re: Plaintiff write: I vehemently disagree with the letter of Tue, Sept. 25, 2012 of US Attorney Jones.. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (lnl) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 68 |
Filed: 9/17/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MEMORANDUM OF LAW for Plaintiff's Reply Against Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (lnl) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 67 |
Filed: 9/17/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR PLAINTIFF REPLY AGAINST MOTION TO DISMISS. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (djc) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 66 |
Filed: 9/27/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of The Federal Defendants' Reply Papers served on Peter Lindner on September 23 and 24, 2012. Service was made by Email and Mail. Document filed by Joseph R. Guccione, James Howard, Brian Murphy, Betty Ann Pascarella. (Harwood, Christopher) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 65 |
Filed: 9/27/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of an identical binder delivered to Judge Nathan's chambers containing CSO Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, opening brief in support thereof, Plaintiff's submissions constituting his opposition to the CSO Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and CSO Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law in further support of their motion to dismiss served on Pro Se Plaintiff Peter Lindner on 09/24/2012. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Muschitello, Newell, The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY. (Woltz, Jennie) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 64 |
Filed: 9/19/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
PLAINTIFF MOTION REQUESTING FULL HEARING. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner.(ama) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 63 |
Filed: 9/25/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Peter Lindner in Opposition. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 62 |
Filed: 9/25/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
Letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christopher B. Harwood dated 9/25/2012 re: I write respectfully in response to the affidavit that Plaintiff submitted to the Court yesterday, September 24, 2012. This affidavit is the latest in a series of documents that Plaintiff has submitted in response to the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss after the September 10, 2012, deadline for Plaintiff's opposition papers. As with Plaintiff's other submissions, nothing in this affidavit undermines any of the Federal Defendants' arguments, including that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the FTCA prior to bringing this lawsuit. Document filed by Joseph R. Guccione, James Howard, Brian Murphy, Betty Ann Pascarella.(lmb) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 61 |
Filed: 9/24/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
ORDER OF SERVICE: Plaintiff is reminded that he shall abide by this Court's Special Rules of Practice in Civil Pro Se Cases, which are attached to this Order. In particular, Plaintiff shall submit all of his communications with the Court to the Pro Se Office. Plaintiff shall not email or call Chambers. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/24/2012) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (lmb) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 60 |
Filed: 9/25/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
AFFIDAVIT of Peter Lindner in Opposition. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 59 |
Filed: 9/24/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 35 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.. Document filed by Muschitello, Newell, The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY. (Woltz, Jennie) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 58 |
Filed: 9/21/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
Letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christopher B. Harwood dated 9/21/2012 re: I write respectfully in response to Plaintiff's emails to the Court, dated September 20, 2012, and September 21, 2012, to respond to Plaintiff's suggestion that this Office is relying on a "false... certification" in this matter. While this Office regrets burdening the Court with further correspondence, we wish to underscore that we stand by our motion papers and reject Plaintiff's allegations or suggestions that this Office submitted a false declaration or engaged in any improper conduct. (rjm) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 57 |
Filed: 9/22/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
DECLARATION of Gerald Auerbach in Support re: 38 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to the Federal Defendants.. Document filed by Joseph R. Guccione, James Howard, Brian Murphy, Betty Ann Pascarella. (Harwood, Christopher) (Entered: 09/22/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 56 |
Filed: 9/22/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 38 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to the Federal Defendants.. Document filed by Joseph R. Guccione, James Howard, Brian Murphy, Betty Ann Pascarella. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Harwood, Christopher) (Entered: 09/22/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 55 |
Filed: 9/21/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
AFFIRMATION of Peter Lindner in Opposition re: 38 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to the Federal Defendants., 35 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement DOJ OIG confirm 2 referrals to USMS and FBI, # 2 Supplement US DOJ OIG USMS letter of Sep 13, 2010, # 3 Supplement US DOJ OIG USMS letter of Aug16, 2011)(Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 54 |
Filed: 9/21/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s) and or their counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice against the defendant(s) All Defendants. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 53 |
Filed: 9/21/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
REDACTION to 52 Redacted Document filed by Peter W. Lindner (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Cover email sent to USDJ Nathan and both counsel)(Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 52 |
Filed: 9/21/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
REDACTION to 40 Declaration in Support of Motion, 39 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed out of frustration by Peter W. Lindner (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Cover email sent to USDJ Nathan and both counsel)(Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 51 |
Filed: 9/20/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
REDACTION to 50 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion,, filed by Peter W. Lindner, The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY(Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 50 |
Filed: 9/19/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
AFFIDAVIT of Peter Lindner in Opposition re: 49 MOTION for ESI and Alleged bad Faith Negotiation by Defendants AKAL, CSO Newell, CSO Muschitiello and their Lawyers., 38 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to the Federal Defendants., 17 MOTION for Reconsideration., 19 MOTION Drop Direct Federal Law Enforcement Officer Communicatins who shall presumabley shall be or is represented by competent attorneys., 35 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint., 46 MOTION., 32 MOTION.. Document filed by Peter W. Lindner. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit w Notary seal, # 2 Supplement Memo of Law, # 3 Exhibit Filed DOJ 6Dec2010)(Lindner, Peter) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 49 |
Filed: 7/20/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MOTION and MEMO OF LAW for ESI and Alleged bad Faith Negotiation by Defendants AKAL, CSO Newell, CSO Muschitiello and their Lawyers. Document filed by Peter Lindner. ***Docket and file instructions from Chambers on 8/22/2012.(tro) Modified on 8/23/2012 (tro). (Entered: 08/23/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 48 |
Filed: 8/10/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Peter Lindner dated 8/7/2012 re: Plaintiff requests a month extension. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff is granted until 9/10/12 to oppose the motions to dismiss and Defendants' 8/1/12 letter. Replies shall be due by 9/24/12. No further extensions will be granted., ( Responses due by 9/10/2012., Replies due by 9/24/2012.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/10/2012) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (lmb) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 47 |
Filed: 8/10/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
Letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christopher B. Harwood dated 8/1/2012 re: I write respectfully to address two documents that were entered on the docket for this case after the Federal Defendants filed their motion to dismiss: (1) a return of service form for "D. Disrud (Congressional Affairs Chief)"; and (2) a return of service form for "Witness Security S. Jones." Dkt. Nos. 42, 43. I also write in response to a document that Plaintiff filed on March 13, 2012, titled, "Motion Drop Direct Federal Law Enforcement Officer Communications Who Shall Presumably Shall Be Or Is Represented By Competent Attorney(s)" (the "motion to drop"). Dkt. No. 19. Document filed by Joseph R. Guccione, James Howard, Brian Murphy, Betty Ann Pascarella.(lmb) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 46 |
Filed: 7/20/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MOTION AND MEMO OF LAW ON MOTION FOR ESI AND ALLEGED BAD FAITH NEGOTIATION BY DEFENDANTS AKAL, CSO NEWELL, CSO MUSCHITIELLO AND THEIR LAWYERS. Document filed by Peter Lindner.(lmb) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 45 |
Filed: 7/24/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger from Jennie Woltz dated 7/24/2012 re: This firm represents CSOS Newell and Muschitiello and Akal Security, Inc. (collectively, the "CSO Defendants") in connection with the above-referenced action. I write to seek clarification on the Court's Order dated July 20, 2012, that "Discovery is stayed pending resolution of the defendants' motion to dismiss." (Dkt. 44) Specifically, Defendant respectfully requests clarification as to whether the Court's Order also stays Plaintiff's July 20, 2012 motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (Dkt. 44). ENDORSEMENT: It does. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on 7/24/2012) (djc) (Entered: 07/25/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 44 |
Filed: 7/20/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MOTION AND MEMO OF LAW ON MOTION FOR ESI AND ALLEGED BAD FAITH NEGOTIATION BY DEFENDANT AKAL, CSO NEWELL, CSO MUSCHITIELLO AND THEIR LAWYERS: ENDORSEMENT:Discovery is stayed pending resolution of the defendants motion to dismiss. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on 7/20/2012) (ama) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 43 |
Filed: 7/17/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. S. Jones served on 6/8/2012, answer due 6/29/2012. Service was accepted by USA Dickenson. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (pl) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 42 |
Filed: 7/17/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE UNEXECUTED as to D. Disrud. Attempted Service of Summons and Complaint,. Service was attempted on 6/8/2012. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (pl) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 41 |
Filed: 7/16/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Motion to Dismiss; Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss; Declaration of Gerald Auerbach; a document titled, "Notice to Pro Se Litigant Who Opposes a Rule 12 Motion"; the text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; and copies of the unreported cases cited in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss served on Peter Lindner on July 16, 2012. Service was made by Email and Mail. Document filed by Joseph R. Guccione, James Howard, Brian Murphy, Betty Ann Pascarella. (Harwood, Christopher) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 40 |
Filed: 7/16/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
DECLARATION of Gerald Auerbach in Support re: 38 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to the Federal Defendants.. Document filed by Joseph R. Guccione, James Howard, Brian Murphy, Betty Ann Pascarella. (Harwood, Christopher) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 39 |
Filed: 7/16/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 38 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to the Federal Defendants.. Document filed by Joseph R. Guccione, James Howard, Brian Murphy, Betty Ann Pascarella. (Harwood, Christopher) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 38 |
Filed: 7/16/2012, Entered: None |
Motion to Dismiss |
|
MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to the Federal Defendants. Document filed by Joseph R. Guccione, James Howard, Brian Murphy, Betty Ann Pascarella.(Harwood, Christopher) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 37 |
Filed: 7/13/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss served on Peter Lindner on 7/13/12. Service was made by Overnight Mail and Facsimile. Document filed by Muschitello, Newell, The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY. (Woltz, Jennie) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 36 |
Filed: 7/13/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 35 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.. Document filed by Muschitello, Newell, The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY. (Woltz, Jennie) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 35 |
Filed: 7/13/2012, Entered: None |
Motion to Dismiss |
|
MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Document filed by Muschitello, Newell, The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY.(Woltz, Jennie) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 34 |
Filed: 7/13/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Corporate Parent KIIT for The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY. Document filed by The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY.(Woltz, Jennie) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 33 |
Filed: 6/25/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
STIPULATION AND ORDER: Defendants CSO Newell, CSO Muschietello and Akal Security Inc.'s time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint is hereby extended one week from parties previous stipulation of July 6, 2012 (See. Dkt. 30) to July 13, 2012. ( Responses due by 7/13/2012) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on 6/21/2012) (ja) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 32 |
Filed: 6/18/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MOTION FOR ECF FILING AND ESI (ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION). Document filed by Peter Lindner.(cd) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 31 |
Filed: 6/14/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MEMO ENDORSED ON MOTION FOR ECF FILING AND ESI ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION: ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff is authorized to use ECF for filing and to access filed documents in this case. We are offered no reason to wave Pacer fees and decline therefore to do so. So Ordered (Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on 6/14/2012) (js) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 30 |
Filed: 6/13/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
STIPULATION AND ORDER, Muschitello answer due 7/6/2012; Newell answer due 7/6/2012; The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY answer due 7/6/2012. The undersigned will participate in a conference under FRCP 26. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on 6/13/2012) (cd) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 29 |
Filed: 6/1/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. Service was accepted by Robert Sobocienski - Sit Supervisor. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (jfe) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 28 |
Filed: 6/5/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement). Referred to Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger. Motions referred to Michael H. Dolinger. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/5/2012) Copies mailed by Chambers to Pro Se Party of record.(ft) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 27 |
Filed: 6/1/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. Muschitello served on 5/15/2012, answer due 6/5/2012. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (mro) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 26 |
Filed: 6/1/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. Betty Ann Pascarella served on 5/15/2012, answer due 6/5/2012. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (mro) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 25 |
Filed: 6/1/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. Brian Murphy served on 5/15/2012, answer due 6/5/2012. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (mro) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 24 |
Filed: 6/1/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. James Howard served on 5/15/2012, answer due 6/5/2012. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (mro) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 23 |
Filed: 6/1/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. Joseph R. Guccione served on 5/15/2012, answer due 6/5/2012. Service was accepted by Eric Timberman-Chief Deputy. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (mro) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 22 |
Filed: 6/1/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. Newell served on 5/16/2012, answer due 6/6/2012. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (mro) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 21 |
Filed: 6/4/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - FIRST MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: 1 Complaint, as stipulated between Plaintiff and Defendants CSO Newell, CSO Muschitello and Akal Security, Inc.. Document filed by Muschitello, Newell, The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY. Return Date set for 7/6/2012 at 06:00 PM.(Woltz, Jennie) Modified on 6/5/2012 (ldi). (Entered: 06/04/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 20 |
Filed: 6/4/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jennie Dawn Woltz on behalf of Muschitello, Newell, The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY (Woltz, Jennie) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
Filed: 3/13/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MOTION Drop Direct Federal Law Enforcement Officer Communications who shall presumably shall be or is represented by competent attorneys. Document filed by Peter Lindner.(djc) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
Filed: 3/7/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
ORDER denying 17 Motion for Reconsideration On February 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of his claim as against Defendants Bharara and Lain, as well as reconsideration of "other substantive issues." While the standard for granting such a motion is strict, reconsideration is warranted to correct a clear error. There was no error in Chief Judge Preska's decision to dismiss the claims against Defendants Bharara and Lain. Plaintiffs motion is therefore DENIED in its entirety.. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/6/12) Copies Mailed to Pro Se Party Of Record on 3/7/2012. (pl) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 17 |
Filed: 2/28/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
MOTION to reconsider Terminating 2 Defendants from Case. Reconsideration on Other Substantive Issues, and Requesting Oral Arguments Upon Short Notice. Document filed by Peter Lindner.(ft) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 16 |
Filed: 2/22/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
ORDER OF SERVICE: The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a Summons in this action, and Plaintiff, Peter Lindner, is directed to serve the Summons and Complaint upon the Defendants within 120 days of the issuance of the Summons. Plaintiff may request an extension of time to serve the summons. If service has not been made within the 120 days, and Plaintiff has not requested an extension of time to serve within that 120 days, the Complaint may be dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/22/2012) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rjm) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
Filed: 2/21/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Judge Loretta A. Preska is no longer assigned to the case. (pgu) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
Filed: 2/15/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
ORDER granting 5 Motion to Quash; denying 12 Motion to show cause why IBM should not be held in contempt of Court. The Court grants Plaintiff's requests to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Deputy Clerk Margaret Lain and United States Attorney Preet Bharara. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (ii), (iii). The Court also dismisses Plaintiff's claims concerning violation of criminal statutes and under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. The Court grants non-party Movant IBM's Motion to Quash the subpoena and denies Plaintiff's Motion for an Order to Show Cause and Informal Request for list of attorneys and preservation of records. The Court further directs the Clerk of Court to reassign this case to a district judge in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk's office. 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. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 2/15/2012) Copies Mailed By Pro Se Office. (mro) (Main Document 13 replaced on 2/21/2012) (mt). (Entered: 02/16/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
Filed: 12/27/2011, Entered: None |
|
|
MOTION to show cause why IBM should not be held in contempt of Court. Document filed by Peter Lindner.(djc) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 11 |
Filed: 12/30/2011, Entered: None |
|
|
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of subpoena served on Peter Barbur on 12/22/2011. Service was accepted by Robert B. Zwillich, Law Clerk. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (lmb) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 9 |
Filed: 12/28/2011, Entered: None |
|
|
INFORMAL REQUEST as to Representation by Lawyer, Demand for Records Preservation and Objectives of Lawsuit. Document filed by Peter Lindner.(ft) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 8 |
Filed: 12/27/2011, Entered: None |
|
|
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Motion to Quash non-party Subpoena and to Impose Sanctions (with supporting documents) served on Peter Lindner on 12/27/2011. Document filed by International Business Machines Corporation. (Barbur, Peter) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 7 |
Filed: 12/27/2011, Entered: None |
|
|
DECLARATION of Peter T. Barbur in Support re: 5 MOTION to Quash Peter Lindner's non-party Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action and to Impose Sanctions.. Document filed by International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Barbur Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B to Barbur Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C to Barbur Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D to Barbur Declaration, # 5 Exhibit E to Barbur Declaration, # 6 Exhibit F to Barbur Declaration, # 7 Exhibit G to Barbur Declaration, # 8 Exhibit H to Barbur Declaration, # 9 Exhibit I to Barbur Declaration, # 10 Exhibit J to Barbur Declaration, # 11 Exhibit K to Barbur Declaration, # 12 Exhibit L to Barbur Declaration, # 13 Exhibit M to Barbur Declaration, # 14 Exhibit N to Barbur Declaration, # 15 Exhibit O to Barbur Declaration, # 16 Exhibit P to Barbur Declaration, # 17 Exhibit Q to Barbur Declaration, # 18 Exhibit R to Barbur Declaration, # 19 Exhibit S to Barbur Declaration (Part 1 of 2), # 20 Exhibit S to Barbur Declaration (Part 2 of 2))(Barbur, Peter) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 6 |
Filed: 12/27/2011, Entered: None |
|
|
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 5 MOTION to Quash Peter Lindner's non-party Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action and to Impose Sanctions.. Document filed by International Business Machines Corporation. (Barbur, Peter) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
Filed: 12/27/2011, Entered: None |
|
|
MOTION to Quash Peter Lindner's non-party Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action and to Impose Sanctions. Document filed by International Business Machines Corporation.(Barbur, Peter) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
Filed: 12/22/2011, Entered: None |
|
|
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Peter Lindner.(mro) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| Save 25% on a pre-paid one year subscription. |
|
|
| 3 |
Filed: 12/7/2011, Entered: None |
|
|
ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR IFP APPLICATION: The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket. Plaintiff is directed to render payment of the filing fee or submit an IFP application to this Court's Pro Se Office within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. 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). Filing Fee due by 1/6/2012. In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Application due by 1/6/2012. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 12/7/2011) (Attachments: # 1 IFP application)(ees) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 2 |
Filed: 12/2/2011, Entered: None |
|
|
Pro Se Acknowledgment Letter Mailed: Pro Se acknowledgment letter mailed to the plaintiff via USPS to the address noted on the Complaint on 12/2/2011. (msa) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
Filed: 11/17/2011, Entered: None |
|
|
COMPLAINT against Preet Bharara, D. Disrud, Joseph R. Guccione, James Howard, John Doe # 1, John Doe # 2, S. Jones, Margaret Lain, Brian Murphy, Muschitello, Newell, Betty Ann Pascarella, The firm that subcontracted the CSO's to the US Marshal at SDNY. Document filed by Peter Lindner.(rdz) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
|
|
|
|
Update
Alerts
Jump
