McNeill v. Jordan et al
Filing
6
ORDER granting 5 Motion for Reconsideration re 4 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 7/15/2014. (c/m to pro se) (Lee, Tiffeny)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------)(
FITZROY MCNEILL,
Plaintiff,
-against-
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
14-CV-2872 (NGG)
DETECTIVE JONATHAN JORDAN, Shield No.
2824, DETECTIVE WILLIAM J. SOMMER,
Shield No. 2586, and ANTHONY GOMEZ,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------)(
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
On May 5, 2014, prose Plaintiff Fitzroy McNeill initiated the instant action asserting
claims against Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, N.Y. Public Health Law§ 2803, and N.Y.
Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 10, § 405.8. (Compl. (Dkt. 1).) On the same day, Plaintiff also
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Mot. to
Proceed IFP (Dkt. 2).) Plaintiffs IFP application was denied by the court on July 2, 2014.
(Mem. & Order, July 2, 2014 (Dkt. 4).) On July 14, 2014, the date designated by the court as the
last date on which Plaintiff could pay the filing fee, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for
reconsideration of the court's Order denying him IFP status. (Mot. for Reconsideration (Dkt. 5).)
Upon further review, and in light of Plaintiffs apparent financial hardship as described in
the instant motion, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is GRANTED and his application to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1915 is accordingly GRANTED as well.
SO ORDERED.
s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July~. 2014
l?JciioLAs a. aA.RAvlis ·
~e
Uilited States District Ju
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?