United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
MICHAEL A. TELESCA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Michael Rech, acting pro se, commenced the instant
action in New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County
(“Monroe County Supreme Court”) on June 5, 2017.
Plaintiff's complaint purports to bring claims against
defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York
State Constitution, and the common law. Plaintiff seeks to
assert causes of action alleging unlawful arrest, unlawful
search and seizure, malicious prosecution, harassment, and
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
27, 2017, defendants filed a Notice of Removal seeking to
remove the action from Monroe County Supreme Court to this
Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Plaintiff subsequently
filed a motion to remand the matter to state court, which the
Court denied by Decision and Ordered dated October 3, 2017.
November 11, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of interlocutory
appeal regarding this Court's order denying his motion
for remand. Plaintiff concurrently filed a motion in which he
seeks (1) in forma pauperis status with respect to
his appeal; (2) permission to file a late notice of appeal;
(3) reconsideration of the Court's prior order denying
his motion for remand; and (4) permission to file
electronically. For the reasons discussed below, the Court
denies plaintiff's motion in its entirety.
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
asks this Court to grant him permission to proceed in
forma pauperis with respect to his interlocutory appeal.
A party seeking permission to proceed in forma
pauperis bears the burden of demonstrating that he is
indigent. See Potnick v. E. State Hosp., 701 F.2d
243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983). In this case, plaintiff has
submitted no information whatsoever regarding his financial
status to the Court in connection with his motion for in
forma pauperis status. Accordingly, the Court has no
grounds on which it could possible find that he has met his
burden of establishing indigence. The Court therefore denies
plaintiff's motion for permission to proceed in forma
Request to File a Late Notice of Appeal
has also requested permission to file a late notice of
appeal. The Court's Decision and Order denying
plaintiff's motion for remand was filed on October 3,
2017. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(1)(A),
a notice of appeal must be filed with the district clerk
within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed
from - in this case, no later than November 2, 2017.
Plaintiff's notice of appeal was received by the
Clerk's Office on November 1, 2017, within that deadline.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request to file a late notice of
appeal is denied as moot.
Request for Reconsideration
has also asked the Court to revisit its prior decision
denying his motion to remand this case to state court. In
support of this request, plaintiff argues that (1) he is
being prejudiced by having to proceed in federal court,
because he is not permitted to file and receive documents
electronically and (2) defendants failed to comply with the
Court's direction that they file an amended notice of
filing of notice of removal with the Monroe County Supreme
Court no later than October 8, 2017.
arguments are without merit. Plaintiff has offered no
plausible argument that being required to file and receive
documents manually, rather than electronically, is causing
him prejudice. Countless litigants, in this Court and others
across the county, participate in manual filing every day,
and it does not impede their ability to effectively prosecute
plaintiff's contention that defendants failed to comply
with this Court's order, a review of the state court
docket in this matter shows that defendants did indeed file
an amended notice of filing a notice of removal on October ...