Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rendell Robinson v. the City of New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


January 6, 2012

RENDELL ROBINSON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: John G. Koeltl, District Judge:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, inter alia, that officers of the New York Police Department violated his rights. The plaintiff initially named the City of New York and several police officers as defendants (the "City defendants"), in addition to several individuals not employed by the City of New York.

The Court has received the attached letter from the City defendants urging the Court to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint and to close this case.

On February 17, 2011, the City defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in this matter. In response to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff sought and was granted leave to file an amended complaint. On May 5, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, the plaintiff did not name any City defendants and named Majed Aljaed, one of the complaining victims, as the sole defendant in this action. The Court issued an order dated May 17, 2011, which indicated that, if the plaintiff intended to pursue claims against the City defendants, he was to file a second amended complaint within thirty days. The plaintiff did not do so.

By Order dated September 13, 2011, the Court noted that there was no indication that defendant Aljaed had been served with process and directed the plaintiff to show cause why his claims should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which requires that a defendant be served within 120 days of the filing of a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

By Order dated September 16, 2011, the Court granted the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. The Court ordered that the second amended complaint be filed by December 16, 2011, and indicated that no further extensions would be permitted without an affidavit showing very good cause. The Court also reiterated that defendant Aljaed had still not been served with process and directed that defendant Aljaed be served within 120 days of the filing of a second amended complaint.

The plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint and has not produced an affidavit showing very good cause for failure to do so by the December 16, 2011 deadline. Because the plaintiff did not name any City defendants in his amended

20120106

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.