Francis v. Navy Federal Credit Union

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. The Court advised the plaintiff that if she did not file an amended complaint within the required time or otherwise establish good cause for the delay, the Court would dismiss the complaint with prejudice. (Id. at 5.) To date, the plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or an extension request, and the time for doing so has passed. The action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, close the case, mail a c opy of this Order to the plaintiff and note the mailing on the docket. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 3/11/2025. (DG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
ALICIA FRANCIS,
:
Plaintiff,
: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
– against –
:
24-CV-5811 (AMD) (TAM)
:
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
:
Defendant.
:
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:
On July 31, 2024, the pro se plaintiff sued the defendant, a federal credit union, in the
New York Supreme Court, Queens County, alleging that the defendant violated her Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process when it repossessed her car without prior notice or an
opportunity for a hearing. (ECF No. 1-1.) On January 6, 2025, the Court dismissed the
complaint with leave to amend within 45 days of the order, meaning that the plaintiff had until
February 20, 2025 to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) The Court advised the plaintiff
that if she did not file an amended complaint within the required time or otherwise establish good
cause for the delay, the Court would dismiss the complaint with prejudice. (Id. at 5.) To date,
the plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or an extension request, and the time for doing
so has passed.
Accordingly, the action is dismissed with prejudice. See Toliver v. Adner, 836 F. App’x
68, 70 (2d Cir. 2020) (affirming lower court decision to dismiss the pro se plaintiff’s First
Amendment claims with prejudice because the plaintiff did not file an amended complaint with
the allotted time).

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, close the case, mail a copy
of this Order to the plaintiff and note the mailing on the docket. The Court certifies pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and
therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

s/Ann M. Donnelly
___________________________
ANN M. DONNELLY
United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 11, 2025

2