From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ross v. Harrell

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 21, 2022
22-CV-1193 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2022)

Opinion

22-CV-1193 (LTS)

03-21-2022

DARNELL ROSS; JEWEL; SHARON JENNIFER; JAMES; JULIAN; JOSH JAMAR; SHAOLIA MAYA; JOE HAYES, Plaintiff, v. BRUCE HARRELL, MAYOR; UNION PACIFIC RAIL LINE, OWNER; JAY INSLEE, GOVERNOR; LINOLA RIDGE ADMINISTRATOR, SEATTLE WA; JAY Z; RAPPER; LIL BOOSIE, RAPPER; LIL WAYNE, RAPPER, Defendants.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

By order dated February 17, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff Darnell Ross, within thirty days, to either pay the $402.00 in fees that are required to file a civil action in this court or submit a completed request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP application”). On March 8, 2022, the order was returned to the Court with a notation on the envelope indicating that the mail was undeliverable to Plaintiff's address. Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's order, has failed to notify the Court of a change of mailing address, and has not initiated any further contact with the Court, written or otherwise. Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint, filed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915.

Plaintiff Darnell Ross is the only plaintiff who signed the complaint. It appears that Plaintiff Darnell Ross was purportedly asserting claims in this action on behalf of the other named plaintiffs. But Plaintiff, who does not allege that he is an attorney, cannot assert claims on behalf of the other named plaintiffs. See Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[b]ecause pro se means to appear for one's self, a person may not appear on another person's behalf in the other's cause”) The Court therefore considers Plaintiff Darnell Ross as the sole plaintiff in this action.

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

Ross v. Harrell

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 21, 2022
22-CV-1193 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2022)
Case details for

Ross v. Harrell

Case Details

Full title:DARNELL ROSS; JEWEL; SHARON JENNIFER; JAMES; JULIAN; JOSH JAMAR; SHAOLIA…

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

Date published: Mar 21, 2022

Citations

22-CV-1193 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2022)