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)
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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?