From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roberts v. Amtrack R.R. Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 9, 2024
23-CV-8093 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2024)

Opinion

23-CV-8093 (LTS)

01-09-2024

JAZMINE IMAN ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. AMTRAK RAILROAD COMPANY; PETE BUTTIGIEG, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

By order dated October 16, 2023, 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 for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, as barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

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).

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in this action.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Roberts v. Amtrack R.R. Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 9, 2024
23-CV-8093 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2024)
Case details for

Roberts v. Amtrack R.R. Co.

Case Details

Full title:JAZMINE IMAN ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. AMTRAK RAILROAD COMPANY; PETE…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jan 9, 2024

Citations

23-CV-8093 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2024)