Rogers v. Miller et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: This complaint is dismiss as a duplicate of and without prejudice to the litigation pending under Rogers v. Miler, No. 16-CV-3610. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 8/2/2016. (Greene, Donna)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -X NOT FOR PUBLICATION MICHAEL ROGERS, Plaintiff, -against- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Police Officer JAMAAL MILLER; 16-CV-380I 7qTH PRECINCT; NEW YORK POLICE NFW IUKJV 79™ precinct- iNtiw YORK POIICF /y 'N CLERKS OFFICE US DISTRICT COURT E.d.ny. DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 5 AUG 0 2 2013 A Defendants. ■X BROOKLYN OrFiCE Ann Donnelly, United States District Judge: On June 21, 2016, pro se plaintiff Michael Rogers, currently incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility, filed this action in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against police officer Jamaal Miller, the 79''^ Precinct Command, the New York Police Department, and the City of New York. The case was transferred to this Court on July 8, 2016. The Court grants the plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of this order, and dismisses the complaint as duplicative of another action filed in this Court. BACKGROUND The plaintiff alleges that on August 2,2013, Police Officer Miller of the 79'*^ Police Precinct harassed him by making derogatory statements, and that as a result, he filed a complaint against Officer Miller with the NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau ('TAB"). (Compl. at 2.) The plaintiff alleges that in retaliation for his lAB complaint. Officer Miller and his partner stopped and fnsked him, and they then falsely arrested him on August 16,2013. {Id.) The plaintiff further alleges that the day after he gave a sworn deposition regarding his lAB complaint to the Civilian Complaint Review Board, he was "robbed at gun point in his home, by members of a local street gang known s/Ann M. Donnelly

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?