From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Soto v. City of New York

United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Jul 20, 2021
21-CV-4180 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 20, 2021)

Opinion

21-CV-4180 (LTS)

07-20-2021

HECTOR SOTO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

By order dated May 18, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within sixty days. That order specified that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Soto v. City of New York

United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Jul 20, 2021
21-CV-4180 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 20, 2021)
Case details for

Soto v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:HECTOR SOTO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of New York

Date published: Jul 20, 2021

Citations

21-CV-4180 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 20, 2021)