Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Palani Karupaiyan, Petitioner v. New York, et al.

Supreme Court briefNov 12, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

23In The

4.*-.

■*?M-

■.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES (

■

H\:

■

■y1

PALANI KAR UPA iYAN

-Petitioners

STATE OF NEW YORK, et al

- Respondents

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court Of Appeals

for the 2nd Circuit before judgment is

entered in that Court (23-1257):

APPENDIX: for PETITION FOR A WRIT

1 OF CERTIORARI'

Palani Karupaiyahr

Pro se, Petitioned,

1326 W’Wiliiam St.

■ , ■:U:7 Room#2,

Philadelphia, Px4 19132

212-470-2048(M)

«4

/•

•

List of Appendix

1. US District Court ED NY’s Sua Sponte

Dismissal of Complaint.........................

Notice of Appeal.............................

3. Notice of Petition for Mandamus,

Prohibition or alternative.....................

Dist Court Docket Entries............

5. United States Court of Appeals —

USCA2 Docket Entries..........................

1. US District Court

EDNY’s Sua Sponte Dismissal

of Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Docket # 23-CV-5424 (AMD) (LB)

PALANI KARUPAIYAN,

—Plaintiff,

- against STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK

CITY

OF NY, NEW YORK CITY POLICE

DEPT. (NYPD), JOHN DOES-POLICE

OFFICERS OF NYPD, FREDERICK

DSOUZA, PRAVIN PANDEY, RAJA

RANDEY, and ADAR MANAGEMENT

CORP.,

—Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this

action under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the

Fair Housing Act, the Americans with

Disabilities Act, and related state and federal

laws. The plaintiff alleges several claims that

arise out of housing disputes and his arrest. On

July 26, 2023, the Court granted the plaintiffs

request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915. For the reasons that follow, the

plaintiffs complaint is dismissed, but the plaintiff

may amend his complaint within thirty days of

this Order.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff brings this case against the State of

New York, the City of New York, the New York

City Police Department (“NYPD”), John Doe

NYPD officers, Frederick Dsouza, a private

individual who allegedly squatted in the

plaintiffs apartment, Pravin and Raja Pandey,

co-leaseholders of the apartment, and Adar

Management Corp., the apartment’s owner. The

plaintiff alleges that he and Pravin Pandey

shared an apartment in Brooklyn. (ECF No. 1 If

28.) The plaintiff lived in the bedroom, and

Pandey lived in the living room. (Id.) Pandey also

allowed Frederick Dsouza to squat in the living

room. (Id.) According to the plaintiff, Dsouza

repeatedly verbally abused him and physically

assaulted him at least once because of his

ethnicity. (Id. TfH 42, 45.) Pandey was allegedly

aware of the situation, and he also shouted racial

slurs at the plaintiff. (Id. ]f]f 56, 93.) After one

particularly heated interaction, Dsouza called the

police and had the plaintiff arrested. (Id. *[H[ 5864, 91.) The arresting officer (and possibly other

officers at the precinct) similarly discriminated

against the plaintiff: they held him on false

charges and refused to give him diabetes

medicine. {Id. ff 62—73.)

The plaintiff describes several other rental

disputes. For example, the plaintiff claims that

Pravin Pandey, who only eats vegetarian food

because of his religion, would not allow the

plaintiff to cook eggs or other non-vegetarian

food, even though the plaintiff needed to eat non

vegetarian food because of his diabetes. {Id. ff

92-94.) The plaintiff also alleges that Pandey and

Adar Management forced him to sleep on a buginfested mattress and refused his requests to hire

a pest control service to treat the apartment. {Id.

f f 83-89.) Finally, the plaintiff alleges that he

had no money for rent because he had to file

multiple lawsuits against the defendants, and

that Pandey unlawfully evicted him. {Id. ft 95,

96, 99.) Moreover, Pandey refused to let him back

into the apartment to pick up his personal

belongings, including a debit card, a digital

camera and medication. {Id. f f 101, 106-09.)

The plaintiff requests injunctive relief and

monetary damages. He also asks the Court to put

some of the defendants in prison and “to

restructure the NY State courts into 3-tier which

is similar to federal courts structure/hierarchy.”

{Id. at 24-25.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

To avoid dismissal, a complaint must plead

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. u. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible

“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57, 63

(2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009)). Although “detailed factual

allegations” are not required, a complaint that

includes only “labels and conclusions” or “a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555;

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I

construe his complaint liberally and evaluate it

by “less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)

(citation omitted), to raise “the strongest

arguments” that it suggests, Fowlkes v.

Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir.

2015) (cleaned up). Nevertheless, a district court

may sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis

action if the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court must also

dismiss any claims over which it lacks subject

matter jurisdiction. See Henderson v. Shinseki,

562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011) (“federal courts have an

independent obligation to ensure that they do not

exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and

therefore they must raise and decide

jurisdictional questions that the parties either

overlook or elect not to press”).

DISCUSSION

I. Claims Against the State of New York

State governments are immune from suits in

federal court under the Eleventh Amendment to

the U.S. Constitution “unless they have waived

their . . . immunity, or unless Congress has

abrogated” that immunity. Gollomp v. Spitzer,

568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009). “It is settled law,

however, that Congress did not abrogate state

sovereign immunity by enacting Section 1983.”

Rivera v. Evans, No. 13-CV-6341, 2014 WL

4695803, at *10 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2014)

(citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340—42

(1979)). “Nor has New York State waived its

immunity with respect to Section 1983 claims” or

any other claims the plaintiff alleges. Id. (citing

Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n,

557 F.2d 35, 38-40 (2d Cir. 1977)). Therefore, the

plaintiffs claims against New York State are

U.S.C.

dismissed

pursuant

1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The dismissal is with prejudice,

which means that the plaintiff may not re-file

claims against New York State arising out of this

incident.

II. Claims Against the NYPD

The New York City Charter provides that “[a]ll

actions and proceedings for the recovery of

penalties for the violation of any law shall be

brought in the name of the City of New York and

not in that of any agency, except where otherwise

provided by law.” N.Y.C. Charter ch. 17 § 396.

Because the NYPD is an agency of the City of New

York, it is not a suable entity. See Johnson v.

Dobry, 660 F. App’x 69, 72 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing

N.Y.C. Charter ch. 17 § 396); Jenkins v. City of

New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, all claims against the NYPD are also

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e) (2)(B)(ii).

III. Claims Against Raja Pandey and Adar

Management

The plaintiff makes no allegations against Raja

Pandey and only mentions Adar Management

once, alleging that it refused to contact pest

control services. To state a claim in federal court,

a plaintiff must explain how each defendant

caused him harm; he may not simply “group”

defendants together. Amiron Dev. Corp. v. Sytner,

No. 12-CV-3036, 2013 WL 1332725, at *5

(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2013). Accordingly, all claims

against Raja Pandey and Adar Management are

dismissed without prejudice. That means that the

plaintiff may amend his complaint to include

specific facts about what these defendants did

wrong.

IV. Claims Against New York City, NYPD

Officers, Frederick Dsouza and Pravin

Pandey

A. False Arrest and False Imprisonment

Federal courts look to state law when considering

§ 1983 claims for false arrest and false

imprisonment. See Guan v. City of New York, 37

F.4th 797, 804 (2d Cir. 2022). Because New York

does not distinguish between claims for false

arrest and false imprisonment, I treat these as

one claim. See Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d

78, 91 n.13 (2d Cir. 2012).

Section 1983 claims for false arrest are subject to

a three-year statute of limitations. Livingston v.

Mejia, No. 20-CV-2009, 2022 WL 976808, at *4

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2022) (citation omitted).

Because the plaintiff does not state the date of his

arrest, I cannot determine whether his claim is

timely. This claim is therefore dismissed without

prejudice. If the plaintiff wishes to amend this

claim, he must establish that he was arrested

within the last three years. If the plaintiff was

arrested earlier than that, he can ask the Court

to toll the statute of limitations. However, the

Court may only toll the statute of limitations in

“rare and exceptional circumstances,” if'; a

plaintiff can demonstrate that he was prevented

from filing timely and “acted with reasonable

diligence throughout the period he [seeks] to toll.”

Jones v. City of New York, 846 F. App’x 22, 24 (2d

Cir. 2021) (quoting Walker v. Jastremski, 430

F.3d 560, 564 (2d Cir. 2005)).

Moreover, § 1983 only applies to persons “acting

under color of state law.” Matusick v. Erie Cnty.

Water Auth., 757 F.3d 31, 55 (2d Cir. 2014)

(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). That means § 1983

“constrains only state conduct, not the ‘acts of

private persons or entities.’” Hooda v.

Brookhaven Nat’l Lab., 659 F. Supp. 2d 382, 393

(E.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting Rendell-Baker v. Kohn,

457 U.S. 830, 837 (1982)). I thus interpret the

plaintiff to bring false arrest claims only against

individual police officers and the City of New

York1. To the extent the plaintiff also wishes to

hold Frederick Dsouza and Pravin Pandey—or

any other private defendant—liable for false

arrest, he must show that they were acting under

the color of law. “[MJerely fifing a complaint with

the police, reporting a crime, requesting criminal

investigation of a person, or seeking a restraining

1 To state a claim against the City of New York under

federal law, the plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) an

official [municipal] policy or custom that (2) cause[d]

the plaintiff to be subjected to (3) a denial of a

constitutional right.” Torraco v. Port Auth. of N. Y. &

N.J., 615 F.3d 129, 140 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Wray

v. City of New York, 490 F.3d 189, 195 (2d Cir. 2007)).

Under New York law, however, “municipalities can he

liable for the actions of police officers on false arrest

claims under a theory of respondeat superior” or

vicarious liability. Triolo v. Nassau Cnty., 24 F.4th 98,

110-11 (2d Cir. 2022) (collecting cases).

order, even if the complaint or report is

deliberately false, does not give rise to a claim

against the complainant for a civil rights

violation.” Vazquez u. Combs, No. 04-CV-4189,

2004 WL 2404224, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2004).

Rather, the private actor must take “a more

active role” and jointly engage in action with the

police officers. Carrillos v. Inc. Vill. of Hempstead,

87 F. Supp. 3d 357, 371 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).

Accordingly, if the plaintiff wishes to hold the

private defendants liable, he must amend his

complaint to demonstrate that they can be

considered state actors.

B. Malicious Prosecution Claim

In order to prove a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for

malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove “(1)

the initiation or continuation of a criminal

proceeding against plaintiff; (2) termination of

the proceeding in plaintiffs favor; (3) lack of

probable cause for commencing the proceeding;

Moreover, there is also a three-year statute of

limitations for § 1983 malicious prosecution

claims, which begins to run when the prosecution

terminates in the plaintiffs favor. Murphy v.

Lynn, 53 F.3d 547, 548 (2d Cir. 1995); Spak v.

Phillips, 857 F.3d 458, 462 (2d Cir. 2017). If the

prosecution terminated in the plaintiffs favor, he

must allege when that happened.

C. Obstruction of Justice

The plaintiff brings claims against some of the

defendants for obstruction of justice. However,

there is no private right of action for violations of

the criminal statutes concerning obstruction of

justice, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq. That means that

a private individual like the plaintiff may not

invoke these provisions to obtain damages; they

“may be enforced only by the Department of

Justice.” Langella v. United States, 01-CV-11583,

2002 WL 1218524 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2002),

aff’d, 67 F. App’x 659 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary

order). The plaintiffs claims for obstruction of

justice are thus dismissed with prejudice.

D. The Federal Fair Housing Act

The Federal Fair Housing Act “broadly prohibits

discrimination in housing.” Gladstone Realtors v.

Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 93 (1979). Section

3604(a) prohibits person from “refusing] to sell or

rent... or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a

dwelling to any person

and (4) actual malice as a motivation for the

defendant’s actions.” Dettelis v. Sharbaiigh, 919

F.3d 161, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2019). The plaintiff does

not provide sufficient facts about his

arrest—for example, what reason police officers

gave for arresting him or whether the

proceedings terminated in his favor. His claim for

malicious prosecution is thus dismissed

without prejudice; the plaintiff may amend his

allegations to state additional facts to satisfy all

four prongs of the Dettelis test, because of race,

color, religion, sex, familial status, or national

origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). Section 3604(b)

forbids discrimination “against any person in the

terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of

a dwelling, or in the provision of services or

facilities” for any of those same reasons. Id. §

3604(b). And Section 3604(f), which was added in

the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988,

proscribes discrimination “in the sale or rental, or

. . . otherwise make unavailable or deny, a

dwelling to any buyer or renter because of’ a

disability. Id. § 3604(f)(1), (2).

The plaintiff claims that Pravin Pandey

discriminated against him when he prevented

him from cooking eggs and other non-vegetarian

meals, which the plaintiff needed to help manage

his diabetes. First, the plaintiff must state under

which section(s) he wishes to proceed. That is, he

must clarify whether he makes a claim based on

his ethnicity or based on his disability.

Second, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts

to “permit the conclusion that the complained-of

conduct occurred because of discriminatory

animus.” Logan v. Matveevskii, 175 F. Supp. 3d

209, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citation omitted). On

the facts currently pleaded, it appears just as

likely that the defendant prohibited the plaintiff

from cooking non-vegetarian meals because of the

defendant’s own religion and not because he

intended to discriminate against the plaintiff.

While the plaintiff claims that the defendant

“allowed other people to cook/eat non-veg food in

the apartment” (ECF No. 1 H 94), that allegation

is too vague and requires more detail.

Finally, if the plaintiff wishes to proceed under §

3604(a) or (f), he must establish that the

defendant made the apartment “effectively

unavailable to him.” Gilead Cmty. Servs., Inc. u.

Town of Cromwell, 432 F. Supp. 3d 46, 72 (D.

Conn. 2019)- (citation omitted). Without

additional facts, it is not clear that being unable

to cook certain food satisfies this standard. The

plaintiffs Fair Housing Act . claims are

accordingly dismissed without prejudice.

E. Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §

12101 et seq, prohibits discrimination by public

entities based on disability. Quad Enterprises

Co., LLC v. Town of Southold, 369 F. App’x 202,

205 (2d Cir. 2010). To the extent the plaintiff

wishes to hold private defendants like Pravin

Pandey liable, his claims must be dismissed with

prejudice.

F. Section 1981 Claims

Section 1981 protects the equal right of ‘“all

persons within the jurisdiction of the United

States’ to ‘make and enforce contracts’ without

respect to race.” Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v.

McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 474-75 (2006) (cleaned

up) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a)). “The statute

currently defines ‘make and enforce contracts’ to

‘include the making, performance, modification,

and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment

of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of

the contractual relationship.’” IcL (cleaned up)

(quoting § 1981(b)). To allege a § 1981 claim, a

plaintiff must therefore establish that he had a

contractual relationship with a defendant. The

plaintiff does not allege which defendant—Pravin

Pandey, Raja Pandey or Adar Management—

leased him the room, so his § 1981 claim is

dismissed without prejudice.

G. Other Landlord-Tenant Claims

“[Fjederal courts, unlike state courts, have no

jurisdiction over landlord-tenant matters.” Cain

v. Rambert, No. 13-CV-5807, 2014 WL 2440596,

at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May 30, 2014) (collecting cases);

see also Bey v. Jones, No. 19-CV-2577, 2019 WL

2028703, at *2 (E.D.N.Y May 8, 2019). Therefore,

all of the plaintiffs landlord-tenant claims

besides the allegations under the Fair Housing

Act and § 1981 are dismissed with prejudice

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

V. Claims About Restructuring New York’s

Judicial System

This Court has no jurisdiction over how New York

structures its courts or elects its judges. The

plaintiffs claims related to this issue are

dismissed with prejudice.

LEAVE TO AMEND

The Court, will allow the plaintiff thirty days to

amend his complaint. The plaintiff may not re

allege . any... claims that are dismissed with

prejudice. Additionally, he may only re-plead

claims that are dismissed without prejudice if he

can cure the deficiencies discussed in this Order.

The plaintiff must provide all the relevant dates

and facts identified above. He must also explain

separately how each defendant harmed him.

However, if the plaintiff does not know the names

of individual police officers, he may identify them

as John or Jane Doe and provide descriptive

information about the officers and their place of

employment. For example: Police Officer John

Doe of the [Number] Precinct.

The amended complaint must be captioned as

“Amended Complaint” and bear the docket

number assigned to this case: 23-CV-5424 (AMD)

(LB). The amended complaint will completely

replace the original complaint, so the plaintiff

must include all the allegations in the amended

complaint.

The plaintiff may wish to consult the City Bar

Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance

Project at (212) 382-4729 for free, limited-scope

legal assistance.

CONCLUSION

The plaintiffs complaint is dismissed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The plaintiff may amend

■

•

‘'f%

.UM, -

his complaint within thirty days of this Ord§r?:as

discussed above. No summons will issue at this

time. If the plaintiff does not file an amended

complaint within thirty days or does not cure the

deficiencies discussed above, this action will be

dismissed with prejudice.

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. Coppedge v.

United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444—45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ ANN M, DONNELLY

ANN M. DONNELLY

United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

September 8, 2023

2. Notice of Appeal

Form IB

Notice of Appeal to a Court of Appeals From an Appealable

Order of a District Court

United States District Court for the New York , EDNY

Docket Number _ 23-CV-5424 (AMD) (LB)_________

Palani Karupaiyan,

-—Appellant

STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY

OF NY, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPT.

(NYPD), JOHN DOES-POLICE OFFICERS OF

NYPD, FREDERICK DSOUZA, PRAVIN PANDEY,

RAJA RANDEY, and ADAR MANAGEMENT

CORP.,

-----Appellees.

Notice of Appeal

Palani Karupaiyan (name all parties taking the petition)

Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the__2nd_____

Circuit from the order ORDER (ECF-8) that dismissed the

complaint (Entire MEMORANDUM AND ORDER)

(Describe the order) entered on _Sep 08, 2023___(state

the date the order was entered).

/s/ K. Pazhani

Attorney for Pro se, Palani Karupaiyan__

Date: Sep 11 2023.

1 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated Sep 8, 2023 ECF-8

is attached

3. Notice of Petition for^c

Mandamus, Prohibition or

ALTERNATIVE.

Form IB

Notice of Appeal to a Court of Appeals From an Appealable

Order of a District Court

United States District Court for the New York , EDNY

Docket Number _ 23-CV-5424 (AMD) (LB)_________

Palani Karupaiyan,

—Appellant

STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY

OF NY, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPT.

(NYPD), JOHN DOES-POLICE OFFICERS OF

NYPD, FREDERICK DSOUZA, PRAVIN PANDEY,

RAJA RANDEY, and ADAR MANAGEMENT

CORP.,

-----Appellees.

Notice of Petition for Mandamus. Prohibition or

Alternative.

Palani Karupaiyan (name all parties taking the petition)

Petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Circuit from the order ORDER (ECF-8) that

2nd

dismissed the complaint (Entire MEMORANDUM AND

ORDER) (Describe the order) entered on Sep 08, 2023__

(state the date the order was entered).

/s/ K. Pazhani

Attorney for Pro se, Palani Karupaiyan__

Date: Sep 11 2023.

1 )MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated Sep 8, 2023 ECF-8

is attached

4. Dist Court Docket

Entries

l:23-cv-05424-AMD-LB Karupaiyan et al v. State

Of New York et al

Ann M Donnelly, presiding

Lois Bloom, referral

Date filed: 07/12/2023

Date of last filing: 11/08/2023

History of entries

Doc

Description

- Dates

I No.

Filed:

07/12/2023 0 Complaint

Entered: 07/19/2023

07/12/202 Qt Motion for Leave to

Filed:

3 Proceed in forma

07/19/202 pauperis

Entered:

Terminate 07/26/202

0 Clerks Notice of Rule

3 I Filed, &

\Entered: 07/19/2023 73

0 Order on Motion for

Filed &

07/26/2023

Leave to Proceed in

Entered:

forma pauperis

Filed:

08/01/2023 0 Mail Returned

Entered: 08/07/2023

0 Pro Se Consent to

Filed &

08/14/2023

Electronic Notification

Entered:

0 Mail receipt

Filed &

08/15/2023

Entered:

'A'tn*

■&

. *» •

0 Pi^Se ConsenPtblf" •; •

Filed &

08/15/2023

Electronic Notification

Entered:

0 Order

Filed &

09/08/2023

Entered:

Filed:

09/11/2023 0 Appeal Filing Fee Due

Entered: 09/13/2023

09/11/2023 0 Notice of Appeal

11 Filed:

Entered: 09/13/2023

0 Electronic Index to

Filed &

09/13/2023

Record on Appeal

Entered:

09/13/202 0 Motion for Writ nf

9 Filed &

3 Mandamus

Entered:

Terminate 10/12/202

0 Letter

10 Filed &

09/13/2023

Entered:

0 Electronic Index to

Filed &

09/29/2023

Record on Appeal

Entered:

0 USCA Appeal Fees

12 Filed &

09/29/2023

Entered:

0 Order on Motion for

13 Filed &

10/12/2023

Writ of Mandamus

Entered:

10/16/202 0 Motion to

14 Filed &

3 Amend/Correct/Supplem

Entered:

Terminate 10/19/202 ent

0 Order on Motion to

15 Filed &

10/19/2023

Amend/ Correct/Supplem

Entered:

ent

11/08/2023 0 Mail Returned

16 Filed:

Entered: 11/09/2023

5, United States Court of

Appeals-USCA2 Docket

Entries.

Court of Appeals Docket Docketed: 09/14/2023

#: 23-1257

Nature of Suit: 3440

CIVIL RIGHTS-Other

Karupaiyan v. State of New

York

Appeal From: EDNY

(BROOKLYN)

Fee Status: Paid

Case Type Information:

1) Civil

2) Private

Palani Karupaiyan,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

State of New York, City of New York,

New York City Police Department,

(NYPD), John Does Police Officers of

NYPD, Fredrick Dsouza, Pravin

Pandey, Raja Pandey, ADAR

Management Corp.,

Defendants - Appellees.

09/14/2023

r 1

NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL, with

district court docket, on behalf of

Appellant Palani Karupaiyan,

FILED. [3569064]’ [23-1257]* ! If. ’

[Entered: 09/14/2023 08:11 PM]

09/14/2023

DISTRICT COURT

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER,

dated 09/08/2023,

RECEIVED.[3569065] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/14/2023 08:16 PM]

ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of .

record, FILED.[3569066] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/14/2023 08:17 PM]

09/14/2023

INSTRUCTIONAL FORMS, to Pro ,

Se litigant, SENT.[3569067] [231257] [Entered: 09/14/2023 08:19

PM]

09/14/2023

NOTICE, to Appellee ADAR

Management Corp., regarding a

corporation proceeding Pro Se, and

requesting a response 30 days from

the date of this letter,

SENT. [3569068] [23-1257] [Entered:

09/14/2023 08:24 PM]

09/19/2023

r 9

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, on ,

behalf of Appellant Palani

Karupaiyan, FILED. Service date

09/19/2023 by CM/ECF.[3570752]

[23-1257] [Entered: 09/19/2023 05:30

PM]

09/19/2023

r 10

FORM D-P, on behalf of Appellant

Palani Karupaiyan, FILED. Service

date 09/19/2023 by

r 4

r 5

CM/ECF. [3570753] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/19/2023 05:31 PM]

09/19/2023

09/20/2023

LR 31.2 SCHEDULING

NOTIFICATION, on behalf of

Appellant Palani Karupaiyan,

informing Court of proposed due

date 12/12/2023, RECEIVED.

Service date 09/19/2023 by

CM/ECF.[3570758] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/19/2023 05:34 PM]

ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT

LR 34.1 (a), on behalf of filer Party

Palani Karupaiyan, FILED. Service

date 09/19/2023 by CM/ECF.

[3570759] [23-1257] [Entered:

09/19/2023 05:35 PM]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, on

behalf of Appellant Palani

Karupaiyan, FILED. Service date

09/20/2023 by CM/ECF.[3571007]

[23-1257] [Entered: 09/20/2023 12:19

PM]

FORM D-P, on behalf of Appellant

Palani Karupaiyan, FILED. Service

date 09/20/2023 by

CM/ECF. [3571019] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/20/2023 12:31 PM]

FORM D-P, on behalf of Appellant

Palani Karupaiyan, FILED. Service

date 09/20/2023 by

CM/ECF.[3571042] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/20/2023 01:06 PM]

09/20/2023

r 16

LR 31.2 SCHEDULING

NOTIFICATION, on behalf of

Appellant Palani Karupaiyan,

informing Court of proposed due

date 12/18/2023, RECEIVED.

Service date 09/20/2023 by

CM/ECF.[3571047] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/20/2023 01:09 PM]

09/20/2023

ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT

LR 34.1 (a), on behalf of filer Party

Palani Karupaiyan, FILED. Service

date 09/20/2023 by CM/ECF.

[3571049] [23-1257] [Entered:

09/20/2023 01:10 PM]

09/22/2023

r 18

LETTER, on behalf of Appellee State

of New York, informing the Court

that the New York State Attorney

General's Office is not representing

the Defendant-Appellee in this

appeal and would like to be removed

as counsel, RECEIVED. Service date

09/21/2023 by US mail.[3572247]

[23-1257] [Entered: 09/22/2023 11:45

AM]

09/22/2023

ATTORNEY, Barbara D.

Underwood, for Appellee State of

New York,

TERMINATED.[3572272] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/22/2023 12:11 PM]

r 17

09/22/2023

F 21

LETTER, on behalf of Appellant

Palani Karupaiyan, informing the

Court that Appellant submitted her

money order for the filing fee to the

District Court, RECEIVED. Service

date 09/22/2023 by

CM7ECF.[3572396] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/22/2023 01:53 PM]

09/26/2023

09/29/2023

LETTER, dated 09/25/2023, on

behalf of Appellees City of New

York, New York City Police

Department and Police Officers of

NYPD, informing the Court that the

New York City Law Department

does not represent the Appellees in

this appeal and would like to be

removed as counsel on record,

RECEIVED. Service date 09/25/2023

by US mail. [3573630] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/26/2023 02:20 PM]

ATTORNEY, Sylvia Hinds-Radix,

for City of New York, New York City

Police Department and John Does

Police Officers of NYPD,

TERMINATED.[3573632] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/26/2023 02:22 PM]

NOTICE, to Appellee ADAR

Management Corp., for failure to file

an appearance, SENT.[3575295] [231257] [Entered: 09/29/2023 10:09

AM]

DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT,

Acknowledgment and Notice of

Appearance Form, [9], on behalf of

Appellant Palani Karupaiyan,

FILED.[3575349] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/29/2023 10:45 AM]

09/29/2023

r 27

DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, Form DP, [10], [14], on behalf of Appellant

Palani Karupaiyan,

FILED.[3575362] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/29/2023 10:50 AM]

09/29/2023

DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, LR 31.2

Scheduling Notification, [11], on

behalf of Appellant Palani

Karupaiyan, FILED.[3575435] [231257] [Entered: 09/29/2023 11:19

AM]

09/29/2023

r 30

09/29/2023

r 31

DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, Oral

Argument Statement, [12], on behalf

of Appellant Palani Karupaiyan,

FILED.[3575452] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/29/2023 11:29 AM]

CURED DEFECTIVE

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FORM,

FORM D-P, LR 31.2 SCHEDULING

NOTIFICATION, ORAL

ARGUMENT STATEMENT, [13],

[15], [16], [17], on behalf of

Appellant Palani Karupaiyan,

FILED.[3575466] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/29/2023 11:32 AM]

PAYMENT OF DOCKETING FEE,

on behalf of Appellant Palani

Karupaiyan, district court receipt #

100009824, FILED.[3575697] [231257] [Entered: 09/29/2023 02:57

PM]

09/29/2023 ' FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL

ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of

r: 32

record, FILED. [3575698] [23-1257]

[Entered: 09/29/2023 02:58 PM]

10/04/2023

r 35

BRIEF & APPENDIX, on behalf of

Appellant Palani Karupaiyan,

FILED. Service date 10/04/2023 by

CM/ECF. [3577642] [23-1257]

[Entered: 10/04/2023 06:31 PM]

10/15/2023

MOTION, to amend document, on

behalf of Appellant Palani

Karupaiyan, FILED. Service date

10/15/2023 by CM/ECF. [3581276]

-[23-1257] [Entered: 10/15/2023 04:58

.PM]

10/15/2023

10/18/2023

BRIEF, on behalf of Appellant

Palani Karupaiyan, FILED: Service

date 10/15/2023 by

CM/ECF.[3581277] [23-1257]

[Entered: 10/15/2023 05:04 PM]

BRIEF & APPENDIX, on behalf of

Appellant Palani Karupaiyan,

FILED. Service date 10/13/2023 by

CM/ECF. [3581278] [23-1257]

[Entered: 10/15/2023 05:06 PM]

MOTION ORDER, granting

Appellant's motion for Court to

accept an amended brief, [36], filed

by Appellant Palani Karupaiyan,

FILED. [3582571][41] [23-1257]

[Entered: 10/18/2023 02:24 PM]

10/19/2023

SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX, on

behalf of Appellant Palani

Karupaiyan, FILED. Service date

10/19/2023 by CM/ECF. [3583079]

[23-1257] [Entered: 10/19/2023 06:53

PM]

10/27/2023

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, for

when the appellant/petitioner served

the Brief and appendix to the dist

Judge, I was told that docket is

closed to court will not file on docket.

Now the docket is open appellant

served the amended brief and

appendix thru internet box service.,

on behalf of Appellant Palani

Karupaiyan, FILED. Service date

10/27/2023 by CM/ECF.[3585475]

[23-1257] [Entered: 10/27/2023 05:58

PM]

r 43

r 45

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.