Opinion
1:22-CV-7910 (LTS)
12-01-2022
TEQUAN DOE, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
By order dated October 26, 2022, the Court denied what it construed as Plaintiff's requests for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 6.3, as well as Plaintiff's request for the Court to seal one of Plaintiff's previous letters, without prejudice to Plaintiff's filing a motion to proceed in this action under a pseudonym or under seal that is accompanied by both a redacted and unredacted version of an amended complaint filed in compliance with the Court's October 3, 2022, order. The Court also denied Plaintiff's application for immediate injunctive relief without prejudice to renewal after Plaintiff filed such an amended complaint, and it granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days to file such an amended complaint.
On November 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting an extension of time to comply with the Court's October 3, 2022, order. (ECF 11.) In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court grants Plaintiff's request for an extension of time.
The Court directs Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court's October 3, 2022, order within 30 days of the date of this order. Any motion Plaintiff files to proceed under a pseudonym or under seal must be accompanied by both a redacted and unredacted version of an amended complaint filed in compliance with the Court's October 3, 2022, order.NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order or the Court's October 3, 2022, order within the time allowed, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
The Clerk's Office is aware that any unredacted information that a litigant requests the Court to review that is associated with a motion to proceed under a pseudonym or under seal must be reviewed by the Court before a determination is made as to whether such information will appear on the Court's public 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 in forma pauperis 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.