United States District Court, W.D. New York
June 20, 2005.
ABDUL SHARIFF, Plaintiff,
THOMAS POOLE, Superintendent of Five Points Correctional Facility, DAVID NAPOLI, Deputy Superintendent of Security, BRIAN McCAULEY, Lieutenant of Five Points Correctional Facility, PETER FICCHI, Lieutenant of Five Points Correctional Facility, FRANK ROSSBACH, Correctional Officer at Five Points Correctional Facility, MICHAEL O'HARA, Correctional Officer at Five Points Correctional Facility, LUCIEN LEROUX, Correctional Officer at Five Points Correctional Facility, and TRACY AULT, Correctional Officer at Five Points Correctional Facility, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN T. ELFVIN, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated in the Five Points Correctional
Facility, has requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and has both met the statutory
requirements and furnished the Court with a signed Authorization.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request to proceed as a poor person is
hereby granted. In addition, plaintiff's complaint has been
screened by the Court with respect to the 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)
and 1915A criteria. The complaint is sufficient to survive this
initial review. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied without
prejudice at this time. Because the complaint has not yet been
served and no answering papers have been filed, there is
insufficient information before the Court at this time to make
the necessary assessment of plaintiff's claims under the
standards promulgated by Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390,
392 (2d Cir. 1997), and Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58
(2d Cir. 1986).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to file plaintiff's papers,
and to cause the United States Marshal to serve copies of the
Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon the named defendants
without plaintiff's payment therefor, unpaid fees to be
recoverable if this action terminates by monetary award in
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), the defendants are
directed to answer the complaint.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.