Opinion
19-CV-10471 (CM)
12-20-2019
ANTHONY HERMO, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER :
Plaintiff brings this action pro se. On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a form consenting to electronic service. (ECF No. 7.) On the same day, he submitted a letter, asking the Court "whether there is any other way than by email to retrieve further documents, because [Plaintiff] does not have a computer device at this time." (ECF No. 8.) He also states that he was under the impression that mail sent from the Court through the postal service would be certified.
Because it is unclear why Plaintiff consented to electronic service when he does not have access to a computer, the Court is unable to determine what exactly Plaintiff seeks. But as it appears he cannot access documents electronically, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to remove from the docket Plaintiff's consent to electronic service. All future documents shall be mailed to the address Plaintiff provided by regular mail. The Court does not send copies of orders by certified mail.
It is Plaintiff's obligation to update his address. Failure to do so could result in the dismissal of his action if he fails to comply with court orders.
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of this order and a copy of the December 13, 2019 order to amend (ECF No. 6).
The Clerk of Court is also directed to remove from the docket Plaintiff's consent to electronic service (ECF No. 7) and return the form to Plaintiff.
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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: December 20, 2019
New York, New York
/s/_________
COLLEEN McMAHON
Chief United States District Judge