Washington v. Paterson

District Court, S.D. New York

Washington v. Paterson

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHARMEEN D. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, 23-CV-8768 (LTS) -against- DR. MS. PATTERSON, Radiologist for Lenox ORDER OF DISMISSAL Hill, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: On November 6, 2023, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days. That order specified that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(1), is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).1 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. See Coppedge v. United States,

369 U.S. 438, 444-45

(1962).

1 In 2023, Plaintiff has filed 12 pro se complaints in this court, and she has been warned that if she abuses the privilege of proceeding IFP, she could be ordered to show cause why she should not be barred, under

28 U.S.C. § 1651

, from filing new actions IFP in this Court without prior permission. See, e.g., Washington v. Tocco, ECF 1:23-CV-5561, 13. (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2023) That warning remains in effect. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 19, 2023 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown