Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In Re Larry Pouncy, Petitioner

l'

I

APPENDIX INDEX

UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS SECOND CIRCUIT

APPENDIX 1 April 17, 2018, Second Circuit Denied Pouncy’s Moves To

Recall The Mandate And For Leave To Submit An Oversized Motion For

Reconsideration Or Reconsideration En Banc............................................

la

APPENDIX 2 January 20, 2017, Second Circuit Denied Pouncy’s motion for Reconsideration

and Mandated the November 17, 2016, Order no. 2 on February 2, 2017.......... 2a

APPENDIX 3 December 19, 2016, Second Circuit Granted Pouncy Motion to Extension of

Time For Reconsideration, and Pouncy Submitted His Motion On January 3,

2017..................................................................................................................

3a

APPENDIX 4 November 17, 2016, Second Circuit Denied Pouncy’s Motion for In Forma

Pauperis and Dismissed Pouncy’s appeal.....................................................

4a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

[Pouncy filed his federal complaint on November 5, 2015, Docket No. 15-8753-cv]

APPENDIX 5 February 9, 2016, District Court sua sponte and reversed Pouncy IFP and

dismissed Pouncy complaint and CIVIL JUDGMENT ENTERED..........

5a

APPENDIX 6 January 15, 2016, District Court Granted Pouncy In Forma Pauperis

28U.S.C. § 1915(a)............................................................................

11a

NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS

APPENDIX 7 November 14, 2013, Court of Appeals NY denied Pouncy’s motion for

reargument for leave to appeal 22N.Y.3d 970 [2013].............................

12a

APPENDIX 8 June 4, 2013, Court of Appeals NY denied Pouncy leave to appeal and

denied Pouncy motion for poor person 21 N.Y.3d 857 [2013]...............

13a

APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT

APPENDIX 9 February 7, 2013, First Department Denied Pouncy motion for reargue/renew

Or in alternative Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeals NY from the

decision and order of the First Department........................................................ 14a

APPENDIX 10 November 8, 2012, First Department Affirmed Order no. 8421-8421A the

State Court’s Orders No. 2 & 3. 100 A.D.3d 410 9 [Nov. 8. 2010]............

15a

II

APPENDIX 11 July 28, 2011, First Department denied Pouncy for poor person status

[even though the State Court Granted Pouncy’s Poor Person,

December 15, 2010]..............................................................................

17a

NY STATE SUPREME COURT. COUNTY OF N.Y.

APPENDIX 12 February 7, 2012, Eileen A. Rakower [J.S.C.] denied to sign Pouncy’s

subpoena to transfer the State Supreme Court papers to the First

Department in order to perfect Pouncy’s appeal. Instead Judith J. Gische,

[J.S.C.]........................................................................................................

18a

APPENDIX 13 September 16, 2011, Eileen A. Rakower, [J.S.C.] Order No. 4 denied

Pouncy a Hearing on his Order to Show Cause motion to vacate and or

renew/reargue.........................................................................................

19a

[May 23, 2011, Pouncy filed for state appeal with a poor person motion]

APPENDIX 14 May 10, 2011, State Court Hearing held and Transcript - Orders No. 2

Denied & Pouncy’s motion for Default Judgment and Order No. 3

Granted Solotaroff s Motion to Dismiss even though Solotaroff failed to

answer and defaulted on their defense case. WL11166018 (NY Sup.).....

21a

APPENDIX 15 March 3, 2011, the State Court Order No. 1, Granted Solotaroff s

request letter and withdrew as moot Solotaroff s OTSC motion to

extend the time to answer Pouncy’s complaint a day later, even though

Solotaroff received the extra time to answer..........................................

24a

APPENDIX 16 February 28, 2011, Porter submit letter to Eileen A. Rakower [J.S.C.]

for request to withdraw as moot Solotaroff s motion to extend the

time to answer, and submit a motion to dismiss [and clear copy].......

25a

APPENDIX 17 January 25, 2011, Solotaroff made an emergency application to extend

the time to answer Pouncy’ complaint, with a return date

February 22, 2011..................................................................................

26a

APPENDIX 18 December 15, 2010, State Court Granted Pouncy Poor Person status on

his verified complaint with summons by Honorable Doris Ling-Cohan

and served on January 6, 2011................................................................

27a

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

[U.S. Supreme Court also denied Pouncy’s Writ on his Rehearing motion,

missing]

[U.S. Supreme Court denied Pouncy his Writ [Appeal 2013-432] missing]

Ill

[Underlying trial]

UNDERLYING UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS SECOND CIRCUIT

DECISIONS

Solotaroff represented Pouncy at the S.D.N.Y., then quit as Pouncy’s attorney when the

underlying Jury rendered a defective verdict and Pouncy appeal as pro se 5-1-07 to 8-9-09

APPENDIX 19 November 12, 2010 Docket 09-4912-cv, the United States Court of

Appeals Second Court’s Opinion and Order for panel rehearing, or,

in the alternative for rehearing en banc,............................................

,29a

APPENDIX 20 September 21, 2010 Docket no. 09-4912-cv United States Court of Appeals

Second Circuit’s Opinion and Order............................................................. 30a

UNDERLYING UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DECISIONS

APPENDIX 21 10-22-09, Docket No. 06-4777-cv, Robert P. Patterson, Jr. [U.S.D.J.]

United States District Court Post-Trial Order.....................................

38a

APPENDIX 22 8-7-09, Docket No. 06-cv-4777, S.D.N.Y. Judgment - Jury rendered an

[erroneous] defective verdict on inconsistencies of the facts against Pouncy

and for Defendant, with a copy of the incorrect caption of Danka Office

Imaging Co. v. Pouncy, instead of the correct caption of Pouncy v. Danka

Office Imaging Co. This is example of Solotaroff intentional failure to

correct an error.............................................................................................. ,42a

APPENDIX 23 July 6, 2009, Danka made a reconsideration motion late and Judge

Patterson made note of their lateness. Another example of Solotaroff

intentional lack of skill to handle a routine motion.............................

,43a

APPENDIX 24 May 19, 2009, Docket no. 06-cv-4777, Robert P. Patterson, Jr. Order on

on Defendants’ Summary Judgment is Denied in Part, and Granted in Part

Pouncy case move to Trial, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44752......................... ,46a

EVIDENCE OF MERIT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY

DUTY, FRAUD PURSUANT NY JUDICIAL LAW $ 487 AND INTENTIONAL OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS THAT WAS ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED

To follow are documents that shows direct proof of claims against Solotaroff

APPENDIX 25 August 3, 2009, on [page 221, line 4] Judge Patterson opinion at the

underlying federal Trial: “Plaintiff has met the basic evidence of showing

discrimination, and the basic evidence necessary to have a claim of

retaliation... You may have a - you have some - you have got a lot of

work to do, Mr. Solotaroff. There are some damages. And just this

IV

statement of emotional damages, et cetera.”

58a

APPENDIX 26 On [page 394, line 22] Mr. Solotaroff stated: Judge, before we

decide what we are going to. do on rebuttal, it seem that it would

appropriate at this time for plaintiff to make a motion for a

directed verdict.”..........................................................................

59a

APPENDIX 27 August 5, 2009, Wrong caption. The correct caption, Pouncy as

Plaintiff and Danka Office Imaging Co. as defendants at the

underlying trial. Solotaroff failed to correct this error for the jury

proof of intentional sabotage of Pouncy’s federal trial.................

60a

APPENDIX 28 Lastly, Pouncy sent letters and received response letters from

both the U.S. Department of Justice [Civil Division] in

Washington, D.C. Headquarters and David J. Kennedy, Chief,

Civil Rights Unit [S.D.N.Y.].....................................................

61a

Pouncy has the following documents as further evidence but cannot afford to print them out at

this time.

1. The NYC MTA Bid Contract Danka Denial Funding for Pouncy Email dated 10-31 -02

from Greg Bell, Danka’s corporate counsel on contracts, informing Pouncy Danka

will not support Pouncy $3 million account in administrative and to finance the contract.

Example of intent by Solotaroff, Solotaroff failed to furnish this document to the jury

even though Judge Patterson stated this was evidence that denied Danka summary

judgment and allowed Pouncy to move for trial.

2. Danka Email on Denial of Pouncy the Special Pricing List Email from Rick Pirrotta,

dated 02-28-03, Danka allowed a Caucasian Rep to poach Pouncy’s territory and use the

City pricing and finance one of Pouncy’s accounts, but denied Pouncy this list to fund the

NYC MTA bid, see Appx. 30 shows disparate treatment. Solotaroff again intentionally

failed to furnish this document to the underlying jury.

3. Racially Motivated Minority Business List on December 29, 2003, Lance Redder Sales

Director sent Pouncy a racially motivated email of a list of minority business owners.

And the only reason Redder sent this racial email was to offend Pouncy.Solotaroff failed

to furnish to the jury and make the argument, these racially motivated accounts are all

outside Pouncy’s territory and Pouncy could not go after these accounts because these

accounts are located out in Suffolk County, Long Island not Brooklyn.

4. Pouncy’s Paychecks: (1) Dated 7-5-02, year to date $74,764.41 and (2) Dated 10-25-02,

year to date $107,361.99. However, in 2003 and 2004 Pouncy income was cut in half and

only average $60k to $61 k a serious deduction do to discriminatory acts

5. Redder’s retaliation after work letter. Danka’s Sales Director sent on January 25, 2005,

and after Pouncy was terminated by Danka, a false letter accusing Pouncy of working at

Canon Business Solution, Inc. Claiming Pouncy going after Danka’s clients. This letter

V

was copy to Canon, Pouncy’s potential employer. It turn out Canon reply letter on

February 4, 2005 showed Pouncy did not work for Canon. Moreover, Reddler’s letter was

submitted into the court record, but this document was docketed, the bottom half of this

document was depleted. See where the document stop half way down the page. However,

there is a second page and Solotaroff did not bring this issue to the Judge.

6. Solotaroff Letter of Resignation to Robert P. Patterson, Jr. [U.S.D.J.] (1) March 26, 2009,

Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq. wrote a letter to the underlying district court Robert P.

Patterson, Jr. [U.S.D.J.] that Solotaroff and Schwartz & Thomasshower, LLP wanted to

quit being Pouncy’s attorney while Judge Patterson had Danka’s summary judgment

motion in front of him. Judge Patterson denied Solotaroff request. Judge Patterson was

very upset at Solotaroff wanting to quit inside a defendants’ summary judgment motion.

(2) Solotaroff again after the Jury was discharged Solotaroff sent Judge Patterson another

letter of withdrawal. Judge Patterson granted this request without assignment of another

legal counsel for Pouncy for post-trial motion and on appeal.

7. The Second Circuit Conflicts on Plain Error Doctrine; see Romano v. Howarth et al., 998

F.2d 101; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 16260, in Pouncy’s case, shows the Second Circuit

made the opinion ‘fundamental error’ on the jury error, instead of‘Plain Error’ as they

did in Romano v. Howarth et. al., 998 F.2d 101. The Second Circuit court sua sponte and

addressed, considered and ruled on issues of fact on Romano’s case, a Caucasian

defendant, who’s attorney failed to object to an error at trial, like Pouncy. However, the

Second Circuit chose to site “Plain Error” under Rule 51 and allow the Romano’s appeal

to be remand even though Romano’s lawyer failed to object and preserve defendants’

right to be heard on appeal with these issues. But, when Pouncy as pro se argued his

appeal after Defendants-Solotaroff quit right after the discharge of the underlying jury,

pouncy was given the same protection of the law. The Caucasian defendant [ex-con]

receive a more favorable decision than Pouncy, who is not a criminal nor have ever been

an ex-con, was denied due process, even when Pouncy fundamental rights and the courts

public policy on plain error would allow Pouncy’s appeal to move forward and be

considered. Pouncy believe his appeal was dismissed on account of Pouncy’s race.

8. Solotaroff s admission of No Defense Evidence by Patrick J. Lawless, Esq. Solotaroff s

attorney affirmation to the New York Court of Appeals, that Judge Rakower Opinion

Stated Solotaroff Had Merit. But Solotaroff failed to show defense evidence in opposition

to Pouncy’s documentary evidence. The only evidence Solotaroff showed was Judge

Rakower statement that there was merit.

9. Pouncy Made Complaints To Various Agencies, The Department Disciplinary

Committee First Department NYC District Attorney, NY State Attorney General .All

responded except the State of New York Attorney General.

1*

Case 16-2769, Document 54, 04/17/2018, 2281247, Pagel of 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT

At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the

17th day of April, two thousand and eighteen.

Before: Amalya L. Kearse,

Richard C. Wesley,

Christopher F. Droney,

Circuit Judges.

Larry Pouncy,

ORDER

Plaintiff - Appellant,

Docket No. 16-2769

v.

Jason Louis Solotaroff, Darlney Stewart, Esq.,

Giskan, Solotaroff, Anderson and Stewart,

LLP,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appellant, pro se, moves to recall the mandate and for leave to submit an oversized

motion for reconsideration or reconsideration en banc.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

For the Court:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT

At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at

the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on

the 20th day of January two thousand and seventeen

Amalya L. Kearse,

Richard C. Wesley,

Christopher F. Droney,

Present:

Circuit Judges

ORDER

Docket No. 16-2769

Larry Pouncy,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Jason Louis Solotaroff, Darlney Stewart, Esq., Giskan,

Solotaroff, Anderson and Stewart, LLP,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appellant, Larry Pouncy, filed a motion for reconsideration and the panel that determined

the motion has considered the request.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion is denied.

For The Court:

Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe,

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT

At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the

19th day of December, two thousand and sixteen.

Christopher F. Droney,

Circuit Judge.

Before:

Larry Pouncy,

ORDER

Plaintiff - Appellant,

Docket No. 16-2769

v.

Jason Louis Solotaroff, Darlney Stewart, Esq., Giskan,

Solotaroff, Anderson and Stewart, LLP,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appellant, pro se, filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for

reconsideration.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Any motion for

reconsideration must be filed by January 3, 2017.

For the Court:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, •

Clerk of Court

S.D.N.Y.-N.Y.C.

15-cv-8753

Preska, J.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,

in the City of New York, on the 17th day of November, two thousand sixteen.

Present:

Amalya L. Kearse,

Richard C. Wesley,

Christopher F. Droney,

Circuit Judges.

Larry Pouncy,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

16-2769

v.

Jason Louis Solotaroff, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appellant, pro se, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon due consideration, it is

hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED because it “lacks an

arguable basis either in lav/ or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e).

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

5*

Case l:15-cv-08753-LAP Document 4 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LARRY POUNCY,

Plaintiff,

-against-

15-CV-8753 (LAP)

JASON L. SOLOTAROFF, ESQ.;

DARNLEY STEWART, ESQ.; GISKAN,

SOLOTAROFF, ANDERSON AND

STEWARD, LLP,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendants.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief United States District Judge:

Plaintiff, appearingpro se, brings this action alleging that Defendants committed legal

malpractice while representing him in his employment discrimination case. Pouncy v. Danka

Office Imaging Co., etal., No. 06-CV-4777 (RPP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2009). By order dated

January 15, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs request to proceed without prepayment of fees,

that is, in forma pauperis. The Court dismisses Plaintiffs complaint for the reasons set forth

below.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is

frivolous or malicious., fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see

Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also

dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See

Fed, R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is

obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009),

and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggestTrieslman v. Fed. Bureau of

1&&,

Case l:15-cv-08753-LAP Document 4 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 5

Prisons, 470 F.3d 471,474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

(emphasis in original).

BACKGROUND

On June 20, 2006, Plaint iff Larry Pouncy brought a pro se employment discrimination

claim against his former employer, Danka Office Imaging Company, in this district. See Pouncy

v. Danka Office Imaging Co., el al. No. 06-CV-4777 (RPP). Plaintiff retained Defendant

Solotaroff in May 2007 to represent him in that action. On May 18, 2009, Judge Robert P.

Patterson granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to some of Plaintiff s

claims. Id. (ECF No. 63.) The remainder of Plaintiff s claims proceeded to a jury trial, and on

August 6, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of defendants. Id. (ECF No. 94.) Plaintiffs

post-judgment motions, filed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(a) and 59, were denied

on October 22, 2009. (ECF No. 105.) On September 21, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit affirmed the judgment and post-judgment orders of the district court. Pouncy v.

Danka Image Company, No. 09-4912-cv (2d Cir. Sept. 21, 2010).

On December 15, 2010, Plaintiff brought a legal malpractice claim against Defendants in

the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, arising out of Defendants’ representation in

Pouncy v. Danka Office Imaging Co., et al., No. 06-CV-4777 (RPP). See Pouncy v. Solotaroff, et

al., No. 403748-2010 (N.Y. Sup. Filed Dec. 15, 2010). On May 12, 201 I, Judge Eileen A.

Rakower dismissed that complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal, finding that “plaintiffs

complaint amounts to no more than retrospective complaints about the outcome of defendants’]

strategic choices and tactics, with no demonstration that those choices and tactics were

unreasonable.” Pouncy v. Solotaroff 953 N.Y.S.2d 497 (1st Dep’t 2012) (internal quotations and

citations omitted). The Appellate Division further noted that Plaintiffs claims were barred by the

2

7a

Case l:15-cv-08753-LAP Document 4 Filed 02/09/16 Page 3 of 5

doctrine of collateral estoppel. Id. The Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on June 4, 2013.

Pouncy v. Solotaroff, 21 N.Y.3d 857 (2013), reargument denied, 22 N.Y.3d 970 (2013).

Plaintiff now brings this action - over two years later - seeking to vacate the state court’s

judgment in Defendants’ favor. He asks that the Court either enter judgment in his favor or allow

him to relitigate his legal malpractice claims against Defendants in this forum. Plaintiff asserts

that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because

the action underlying his malpractice claim was litigated in this district. Plaintiff also appears to

suggest that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 2283 provide bases for federal question jurisdiction. (Compl.

at 7-8.) Plaintiff also invokes this Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, claiming

that he is a resident of New York and that at least one defendant - Defendant Solotaroff - lives

in New Jersey, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. {Id. at 8.) Plaintiff also

claims that he has the right to refile his claims “that were unjustly dismissed at the state court” in

this Court, because the 2009 judgment in Pouncy v. Danka Office Imaging Co., et al., No. 06CV-4777 (RPP) was “wrong.” {Id. at 9.)

Finally, Plaintiff seeks “an order to remove [his] state court case” and enjoin “Defendants

from trying to enter Judgment on [him in] case Index. 403478/10.” {Id. at 9.) He also seeks to

vacate the order and judgment in Pouncy v. Danka Office Imaging Co., et al. No. 06-CV-4777

(RPP), and a judgment entered in his favor, {Id. at 10.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs claims are barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The doctrine — created

by two Supreme Court cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923), and

District of Columbia Court ofAppeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983) — precludes

federal district courts from reviewing final judgments of the state courts. Exxon Mobil Corp. v.

Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280. 284 (2005) (holding that federal district courts are

Case l:15-cv-08753-LAP Document 4 Filed 02/09/16 Page 4 of 5

barred from deciding cases “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by

state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting

district court review and rejection of those judgments.”). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies

where the federal-court plaintiff: (1) lost in state court, (2) complains of injuries caused by the

state-court judgment, (3) invites the district court to review and reject the state court judgment.

and (4) commenced the district court proceedings after the state-court judgment was rendered.

Vosshrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 773 F.3d 423, 426 (2d Cir. 2014).

Here, Plaintiff brought his legal malpractice claim in the Supreme Court of New York,

lost, and now asks this Court to review' and vacate the state court’s judgment. Plaintiff

commenced this action long after the state-court judgment became final. Thus, because Plaintiff

is asking that this Court vacate the final judgment of the state court, it is precluded by the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Plaintiffs complaint is therefore dismissed for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

CONCLUSION

The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket, mail a copy to Plaintiff,

and note service on the docket. Plaintiffs complaint, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1), is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

4

‘h

Case l:15-cv-08753-LAP Document 4 Filed 02/09/16 Page 5 of 5

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 in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an

appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2016

New York, New York

LORETTA A. PRESKA

Chief United States District Judge

5

IDt

Case l:15-cv-08753-LAP Document 5 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LARRY POUNCY,

Plaintiff,

-against-

15-CV-8753 (LAP)

JASON L. SOLOTAROFF, ESQ.; DARNLEY

STEWART, ESQ.; GISKAN, SOLOTAROFF,

ANDERSON AND STEWART, LLP,

CIVIL JUDGMENT

Defendant.

Pursuant to the order issued February 9, 2016, dismissing the complaint,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the complaint is dismissed under

Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Court’s

judgment would not be taken in good faith.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mail a copy of this judgment to

Plaintiff and note service on the docket.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2016

New York, New York

LORETTA A. PRESKA

Chief United States District Judge

I la

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LARRY POUNCY,

Plaintiff,

15-CV-8753 (UA)

-againstORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION

JASON L. SOLOTAROFF, ESQ.; ETAL.,

Defendants.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief United States District Judge:

Leave to proceed in this Court without prepayment of fees is authorized. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2016

New York, New York

LORETTA A. PRESKA

Chief United States District Judge

State of New York

Court ofAppeals

Decided and Entered on the

fourteenth day of November, 2013

Present, HON. JONATHAN LIPPMAN, ChiefJudge, presiding.

Mo. No. 2013-747

Larry Pouncy,

Appellant,

v.

Jason L. Solotaroff, et al.,

Respondents.

Appellant having moved for reargument of a motion for

leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals in the above cause;

Upon the papers filed and due deliberation, it is

ORDERED, that the motion is denied.

Judge Abdus-Salaam took no part.

AAndrew W. Klein

Clerk of the Court

m

State of New York

Court ofAppeals

Decided and Entered on the

fourth day of June, 2013

Present, HON. JONATHAN LIPPMAN, ChiefJudge, presiding.

Mo. No. 2013-432

Larry Pouncy,

Appellant,

v.

Jason L. Solotaroff, et al.,

Respondents.

Appellant having moved for leave to appeal to the Court of

Appeals and for poor person relief in the above cause;

Upon the papers filed and due deliberation, it is

ORDERED, that the motion for leave to appeal is denied;

and it is further

ORDERED, that the motion for poor person relief is dismissed

as academic.

Judge Abdus—Salaam took no part.

Andrew W. Klein

Clerk of the Court