Maupin v. Suffolk County Correctional Facility

Docket 2:25-cv-02091

Filed
2025-04-09
Terminated
2025-06-20
Case type
cv

Outcome

other judgment · defendant

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=07 OFFICE=2 DOCKET=2502091 FILEDATE=04/09/2025 DISP=17, PROCPROG=2, JUDGMENT=2; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x MARION MAUPIN, Plaintiff, ORDER - against - 25-CV-2091 (PKC)(JMW) SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and CO POLIZZI, Badge # 2036, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------x PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Marion Maupin brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 29, 2025, the Court granted his request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the action with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (Dkt. 6.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days would result in dismissal of his case. More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case and to send a copy of this Order and the Judgment to Plaintiff. 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 purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. /s/ Pamela K. Chen Pamela K. Chen United States District Judge Dated: June 18, 2025 Brooklyn, New York

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.