Edwards v. Armor Correctional Health Service et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM & ORDER - The Court consolidates these cases under the first-filed Complaint, 15-CV- 4791(JS)(ARL), and DIRECTS that the case assigned docket number 16-CV-2289(JS)(ARL) be CLOSED. All future filings shall be made only under docket nu mber 15-CV-4791(JS)(ARL). Given that the Court's M&O granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, the application recently filed with Edwards II is not necessary and is thus DENIED AS MOOT. Given the procedural history set forth above, the Court construes Edward II as an Amended Complaint and will accept it even though it is untimely filed. However, because Edwards II is nearly identical to Edwards I, and fails to correct any of the deficiencies noted in the M&O, it too is sua sponte DISMI SSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1) for the reasons set forth in the M&O. Given the dismissal of Edwards II, the application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED AS MOOT. 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 any appeal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case and to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 5/18/2016. C/M (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
RICHARD EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
15-CV-4791(JS)(ARL)

-againstARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICE,
NASSAU COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
and DR. CARL SANCHEZ,
Defendants.
----------------------------------X
RICHARD EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,
-against-

16-CV-2289(JS)(ARL)

ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICE,
NASSAU COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
and DR. CARL SANCHEZ,
Defendants.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Richard Edwards, pro se
15001317
Nassau County Correctional Center
100 Carman Avenue
East Meadow, NY 11554
For Defendants:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Incarcerated

pro

se

plaintiff

Richard

Edwards

(“Plaintiff”) filed an in forma pauperis Complaint (“Edwards I”) in
this Court on August 10, 2015 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section

1983”)

against

Armor

Correctional

Health

Service

(“Armor”), the Nassau County Sheriff’s Department (“NCSD”), and Dr.
Carl Sanchez (“Dr. Sanchez” and collectively, “Defendants”).

By

Memorandum & Order (“M&O”) dated December 14, 2015, the Court
granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, sua
sponte

dismissed

the

Complaint

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§§

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and gave Plaintiff leave to file
an Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of the
M&O.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and

the time to do so has long expired.
However,

on

April

27,

2016,

Plaintiff

filed

a

new

Complaint (“Edwards II”) against the Defendants alleging identical
claims and it is nearly a duplicate of Edwards I.
filed

an

application

to

proceed

in

forma

Plaintiff also

pauperis

application for the appointment of pro bono counsel.

and

an

Because the

Complaint in Edwards II is repetitive of his claims alleged in
Edwards

I

consolidates

and

is

them

against
under

the

the

same

Defendants,

first-filed

the

Complaint,

Court
15-CV-

4791(JS)(ARL), and DIRECTS that the case assigned docket number 16CV-2289(JS)(ARL) be CLOSED.

All future filings shall be made only

under docket number 15-CV-4791(JS)(ARL).

Given that the Court’s

M&O granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, the application
recently filed with Edwards II is not necessary and is thus DENIED
AS MOOT.
Given the procedural history set forth above, the Court
construes Edward II as an Amended Complaint and will accept it even
though it is untimely filed. However, because Edwards II is nearly
2

identical

to

Edwards

I,

and

fails

to

correct

any

of

the

deficiencies noted in the M&O, it too is sua sponte DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1) for the
reasons set forth in the M&O.

Given the dismissal of Edwards II,

the application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED
AS MOOT.
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
any appeal.

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45,

82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case and
to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
JOANNA SEYBERT, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

May
18 , 2016
Central Islip, New York

3