From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maoz v. 75th St. Bldg.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mar 4, 2020
19-CV-7248 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2020)

Opinion

19-CV-7248 (AMD)

03-04-2020

ODED MAOZ, Plaintiff, v. 75th St. BUILDING and AVENUE B BUILDING, Defendants.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:

The pro se plaintiff filed his first complaint on December 20, 2019. (ECF No 1.) I dismissed the complaint on January 14, 2020 because it did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 5.) The plaintiff filed an amended complaint a month later (ECF No. 9), but did not address any of the issues that I identified in my January 14 order. Accordingly, on February 20, 2020, I dismissed the amended complaint, but granted the plaintiff a final chance to amend the complaint to comply with Rule 8. The plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on February 27, 2020. (ECF No. 10.)

I also granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. --------

The second amended complaint is nearly identical to its two predecessors and still does not comply with Rule 8. In this version, the plaintiff includes a deed registration and a property transfer report for 251-257 West 75th Street, but does not explain what these documents have to do with his complaint. The latest complaint also includes references to his "medical status," and alleges that various buildings are being listed in his name. The plaintiff has had three opportunities to describe what happened to him, and the relief he seeks, but the basic facts of his claims remain unclear. Because the second amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies identified with his prior submissions, this action is dismissed, and the Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

SO ORDERED.

s/Ann M. Donnelly

ANN M. DONNELLY

United States District Judge Dated: Brooklyn, New York

March 4, 2020


Summaries of

Maoz v. 75th St. Bldg.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mar 4, 2020
19-CV-7248 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2020)
Case details for

Maoz v. 75th St. Bldg.

Case Details

Full title:ODED MAOZ, Plaintiff, v. 75th St. BUILDING and AVENUE B BUILDING…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Mar 4, 2020

Citations

19-CV-7248 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2020)