Dike v. San Simeon By The Sound Center

Filing 10

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. On November 7, 2017, Defendant filed an answer notwithstanding the fact that no summons had yet been issued nor had service of the Summons and Complaint been ordered. Accordingly, Defendant shall apprise the Court in writing no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order whether it shall require the Court to expend resources in ordering the Unit ed State Marshal Service to serve the Complaint. If Defendant elects to waive service by the USMS, the Court shall deem any defense based on improper service to be waived. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal fr om 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 further directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 11/28/2017. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------X CHINEDU DIKE, Plaintiff, -against- ORDER 17-CV-5999(JS)(GRB) SAN SIMEON BY THE SOUND CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING, Defendant. -----------------------------------X APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff: Chinedu Dike, pro se 332 Lake Pointe Drive Middle Island, NY 11953 For Defendant: Juan C. Gonzalez, Esq. Rubin Sheeley Paterniti Gonzalez Kaufman LLP 420 Lexington Ave., Suite 1820 New York, New York 10017 SEYBERT, District Judge: On October 13, 2017, pro se plaintiff Chinedu Dike (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff’s Complaint is accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review of Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. On November 7, 2017, Defendant filed an answer notwithstanding the fact that no summons had yet been issued nor had service of the Summons and Complaint been ordered. Accordingly, Defendant shall apprise the Court in writing no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order whether it shall require the Court to expend resources in ordering the United State Marshal Service to serve the Complaint. If Defendant elects to waive service by the USMS, the Court shall deem any defense based on improper service to be waived. 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 further directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. /s/ JOANNA SEYBERT Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J. Dated: November 28 , 2017 Central Islip, New York

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?