From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Goord

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sep 28, 2009
9:06-CV-1288 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2009)

Summary

rejecting "a facial attack on the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)" as meritless after Polanco

Summary of this case from Barbour v. Attorney Gen. of Virginia

Opinion

9:06-CV-1288.

September 28, 2009

LARRY RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, pro se, 99-A-3278, Marcy, NY.

HEATHER R. RUBINSTEIN, ESQ., Asst. Attorney General, HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New York, Attorney for State Defendants, Department of Law, The Capitol, Albany, New York.


DECISION and ORDER


Plaintiff, Larry Rodriguez, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Report-Recommendation dated July 16, 2009, the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that plaintiff's status as proceeding in forma pauperis be revoked; that plaintiff's amended complaint (Docket No. 5) be conditionally dismissed until such time as plaintiff has payed the entire $350.00 filing fee; and that if plaintiff does not submit the $350.00 filing fee within thirty days form the date of the order adopting the report-recommendation, his complaint be dismissed. The plaintiff has timely filed objections to the report-recommendation.

Based upon a careful review of the entire file, including the portions to which the plaintiff has objected, and the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Treece, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects.See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that

1. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED;

2. Plaintiff's amended complaint (Docket No. 5) is CONDITIONALLY DISMISSED until such time as plaintiff has payed the entire $350.00 filing fee;

3. If plaintiff does not submit the $350.00 filing fee within thirty days (30) from the date of this order, the complaint is DISMISSED without further order of this court; and

4. In that event, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Goord

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sep 28, 2009
9:06-CV-1288 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2009)

rejecting "a facial attack on the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)" as meritless after Polanco

Summary of this case from Barbour v. Attorney Gen. of Virginia
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:LARRY RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. GLENN S. GOORD; RONALD BACKE, Legislation…

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

Date published: Sep 28, 2009

Citations

9:06-CV-1288 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2009)

Citing Cases

Mason v. A. Nitti-Richmond, C.O.

In the context of motions to revoke IFP status, district courts routinely take judicial notice of docket…

Centonze v. Munson

Although not raised in Defendants' motion to dismiss, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court "may sua sponte…