..TI
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 12
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 12
`
`-PS-O-
`
`EmTEE£_a Lg
`
`‘
`
`07~cv—0725s
`onnnn
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`LISA SUSAN COLLINS,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`—v—
`
`'
`
`VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY,
`PRESIDENT BUSH, and UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
`
` .j.
`
`Defendants.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff, Lisa Collins, has filed what is her fifth complaint
`
`(Docket No. 1) filed in this Court within the last few months, and
`
`an application to proceed in forma _pauperis
`
`(Docket No.
`
`2).1
`
`Plaintiff's complaint names President Bush, Vice President Cheney
`
`and the United States as defendants and the claims set
`
`forth
`
`therein are not comprehensible.
`
`In the section of
`
`the form
`
`complaint that requires plaintiff to identify the defendants, she
`
`states
`
`that
`
`one
`
`of
`
`the
`
`defendants
`
`is
`
`“President Bush
`
`in
`
`acknowledgment of Lynn Collins Sterling Gold Bush," whom appears to
`
`be the sister of plaintiff.
`
`(Complaint, Section 3).
`
`The section
`
`of the complaint entitled “Statement of Claim," sets forth some
`
`words and phrases, none of which, however,
`
`
`form a complete sentence
`
`1The four other actions filed in this Court previously were: Collins v.
`Collins, 07—CV—O0439S; Collins V. Banks, O7-CV—O458S; Collins V. Bram, et al.,
`O7—CV-04938; and Collins V. Kowalski, et al., 07—CV-05098. The first action, 07-
`CV—0439S, was dismissed because
`the Court did not
`have
`subject matter
`jurisdiction over the claims alleged in the complaint.
`The other three were
`dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 12
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 12
`
`-PS-O-
`
`EmTEE£_a Lg
`
`‘
`
`07~cv—0725s
`onnnn
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`LISA SUSAN COLLINS,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`—v—
`
`'
`
`VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY,
`PRESIDENT BUSH, and UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
`
` .j.
`
`Defendants.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff, Lisa Collins, has filed what is her fifth complaint
`
`(Docket No. 1) filed in this Court within the last few months, and
`
`an application to proceed in forma _pauperis
`
`(Docket No.
`
`2).1
`
`Plaintiff's complaint names President Bush, Vice President Cheney
`
`and the United States as defendants and the claims set
`
`forth
`
`therein are not comprehensible.
`
`In the section of
`
`the form
`
`complaint that requires plaintiff to identify the defendants, she
`
`states
`
`that
`
`one
`
`of
`
`the
`
`defendants
`
`is
`
`“President Bush
`
`in
`
`acknowledgment of Lynn Collins Sterling Gold Bush," whom appears to
`
`be the sister of plaintiff.
`
`(Complaint, Section 3).
`
`The section
`
`of the complaint entitled “Statement of Claim," sets forth some
`
`words and phrases, none of which, however,
`
`
`form a complete sentence
`
`1The four other actions filed in this Court previously were: Collins v.
`Collins, 07—CV—O0439S; Collins V. Banks, O7-CV—O458S; Collins V. Bram, et al.,
`O7—CV-04938; and Collins V. Kowalski, et al., 07—CV-05098. The first action, 07-
`CV—0439S, was dismissed because
`the Court did not
`have
`subject matter
`jurisdiction over the claims alleged in the complaint.
`The other three were
`dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
`
`
`
` -—
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 12
`Case 1:07—cv—00725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 12
`
`or coherent thought.
`
`(LQL, Section 5).
`
`It is clear to the Court
`
`that
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`complaint,
`
`like those previously filed by
`
`plaintiff,
`
`is frivolous and must be dismissed. Accordingly,
`
`for
`
`the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's request to proceed as a
`
`poor person is granted and the complaint is dismissed as frivolous
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
`
`Because plaintiff has met
`
`the statutory requirements of
`
`28 U.S.C. § l9l5(a), she is granted permission to proceed in forma
`
`pauperis.
`
`Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of 28 U.S.C. provides that
`
`the
`
`Court shall dismiss a case in which in forma pauperis status has
`
`been granted if the Court determines
`
`that
`
`the action (i)
`
`is
`
`frivolous or malicious;
`
`(ii)
`
`fails to state a claim upon which
`
`relief may be granted; or (iii)
`
`seeks monetary relief against a
`
`defendant who is immune from such relief. Section 1915 “provide[s]
`
`an efficient means by which a court can screen for and dismiss
`
`legally insufficient claims.” Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639
`
`(2d Cir. 2007)
`
`(citing Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir.
`
`2004)).
`
`In evaluating the complaint,
`
`the Court must accept as true all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`factual allegations
`
`and must
`
`draw all
`
`inferences
`
`in
`
`plaintiff's favor.
`
`See Larkin v. Savage,
`
`318 F.3d 138, 139
`
`(2d
`
`
`
`IIIIIIIIIIII-----————————————~»
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 12
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 12
`
`Cir. 2003)
`
`(per curiam). Moreover, “a court is obliged to construe
`
`[pro se] pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil
`
`rights violations.” McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d
`
`Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, even pleadings submitted pro Se must
`
`meet
`
`the notice requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure.
`
`W nder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2004).
`
`the plaintiff must provide the
`Thus, “[t]o survive dismissal,
`grounds upon which his claim rests through factual allegations
`
`sufficient
`
`‘to raise a
`
`right
`
`to relief above
`
`the speculative
`
`level.’” ATSI Communications,
`
`Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d
`
`87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007)
`
`(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, ——— U.S.
`
`—~-—, ————, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Generally,
`
`the Court will
`
`afford a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend or to be heard
`
`prior to dismissal “unless the court can rule out any possibility,
`
`however unlikely it ndght be,
`
`that an amended complaint would
`
`succeed in stating a claim.” Abbas, 480 F.3d at 639 (quoting Gomez
`
`V. USAA Federal Savings Bank, l7l F.3d 794, 796 (2d Cir. 1999) {per
`
`curiam )).
`
`Although the plaintiff believes her rights have been infringed
`
`in some manner, it is impossible to determine from the complaint
`
`the nature of plaintiff's claims or the involvement of the named
`
`defendants in the alleged constitutional violations.
`
`The same statute that allows a litigant to commence a civil or
`
`criminal action in federal court
`
`in forma pauperis "authorizes
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 4 of 12
`Case 1:07—cv—00725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 4 of 12
`
`federal courts to dismiss a claim filed in forms pauperis
`
`‘if
`
`satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.'" Neitzke V.
`
`Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989), citing to what is now 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ l915(e}.
`
`to
`largely
`designed
`is
`l915[e}
`Section
`of
`filing of,
`and waste
`discourage
`the
`judicial and private resources upon, baseless
`lawsuits that paying litigants generally do
`not initiate because of the costs of bringing
`suits and because of the threat of sanctions
`for bringing vexatious suits under Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
`To this end,
`the
`statute accords judges not only the authority
`to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably
`meritless legal
`theory, but also the unusual
`power
`to pierce the veil of
`the complaint‘s
`factual allegations and dismiss those claims
`whose
`factual
`contentions
`are
`clearly
`baseless.
`Examples of
`the former class are
`claims against which it
`is clear
`that
`the
`defendants are immune from suit ... and claims
`
`interest which
`legal
`a
`infringement of
`of
`Examples of the
`clearly does not exist....
`latter class are claims describing fantastic
`or delusional
`scenarios,
`claims with which
`federal district judges are all too familiar.
`
`Id. at 327-28 (citations omitted).
`
`frivolousness determination,
`[T]he § l9l5[e]
`sua
`sponte
`before
`the
`frequently made
`defendant has
`even been asked to file an
`
`answer, cannot serve as a factfinding process
`for
`the resolution of disputed facts.
`...
`[A] court may dismiss a claim as
`factuall
`frivolous
`only if
`the
`facts
`alleged are
`"clearly baselessfl'
`a category encompassing
`allegations that are "fanciful," "fantastic,"
`and "delusional."
`As
`those words suggest,
`a
`finding
`of
`factual
`frivolousness
`is
`appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the
`level
`of
`the
`irrational
`or
`the wholly
`incredible,
`whether
`or
`not
`there
`are
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 5 of 12
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 5 of 12
`
`judicially noticeable
`contradict them.
`
`facts
`
`available
`
`to
`
`Qentgn_y;wflernange;, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)
`
`(quoting Neitzke,
`
`490 U.S. at 327.
`
`Plaintiff's claims are precisely the type of "fantastic" or
`
`"delusional" allegations that warrant dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i) as factually frivolous. Moreover, while the
`
`usual practice is to grant leave to replead a deficient complaint,
`
`see Fed.R.Civ.P.
`
`?——:—
`l5(a); see also Ronzani v. Sanofi S.A., 899 F.2d
`
`195,
`
`198
`
`(2d Cir. 1990), especially where a complaint has been
`
`submitted pro se, Davidson v. Flynn, 32 F.3d 27, 31 (2d Cir. 1994),
`
`such leave may be denied where amendment would be futile, such as
`
`in this case.
`
`B.
`
`SANCTIONS
`
`As set forth in footnote 1, supra, plaintiff has filed four
`
`other actions in this Court since July of this year, all of which
`
`have been dismissed on initial
`
`review, pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§
`
`l9l5(e)(2)(B). Because of the wholly frivolous and, what can best
`
`be described as, delusional nature of the complaints filed in this
`
`Court, plaintiff will be precluded from filing any further actions
`
`of any type in this Court without first obtaining permission from
`
`the Court.
`
`The need and justification for a sanction of
`
`this type is
`
`well-documented above and needs no further elaboration.
`
`The fact
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 6 of 12
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 6 of 12
`
`that plaintiff is pro se does not protect her from the imposition
`
`of sanctions when necessary and appropriate to deter baseless
`
`filings. ggg DePonceau V. Bush, 04-CV~6240CJS(Fe), 2004 WL 1574621,
`
`at *3
`
`(W.D.N.Y.
`
`June 4, 2004)
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`It is well-
`
`established that the federal courts “have both the inherent power
`
`and the constitutional obligation to protect
`
`their jurisdiction
`
`from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III
`
`functions."
`
`In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 n.
`
`8
`
`(quoting In re
`
`Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 474
`
`U.S. 1061 (1986)). The Supreme Court and our Court of Appeals have
`
`made it clear that “a district court has inherent authority to
`
`sanction parties appearing before it
`
`for acting in bad faith,
`
`vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons."
`
`Sassower V.
`
`Field,
`
`973 F.2d 75, 80-81 (2d Cir.)
`
`(citing Chambers v. NASCO,
`
`Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45), cert. denied 507 U.S. 1043 (1993)).
`
`Sanctions under Rule
`
`11 of
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure may also be
`
`imposed upon a pro se litigant who continues
`
`to file frivolous or baseless claims and petitions. Mendoza v.
`
`Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191 (5“ Cir. 1993); DePonceau, 2004 WL 1574621,
`
`at *3; Young v. Corbin, 889 F. Supp.
`
`582
`
`(N.D.N.Y. 1995).
`
`The
`
`Supreme Court has stated that “the central purpose of Rule 11 is to
`
`deter baseless filings in District Court and .
`
`.
`
`. streamline the
`
`administration and procedure of the federal courts.” Cooter & Gell
`
`v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)
`
`(citation omitted); see
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 7 of 12
`Case 1:07—cv—00725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 7 of 12
`
`algg flilliam§_y;_Be1l9n_Qg;, 156 F.R.D. 39, 43 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
`
`(The
`
`purpose of Rule 11 is to check abuses which cause “the waste of
`
`judicial resources and resulting inefficiencies and delays that
`
`affect all actual and potential litigants in the federal courts.”)
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`An attorney or unrepresented party may be
`
`sanctioned for
`
`violating Rule
`
`11
`
`by motion or
`
`by
`
`the Court
`
`upon
`
`its own
`
`initiative.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 1l{c)(1)(B).
`
`In the face of
`
`the plaintiff's continuing propensity for
`
`filing frivolous and obviously baseless actions in this Court, it
`
`becomes necessary for the Court
`
`to
`
`impose appropriate sanctions
`
`pursuant to Rule 11 and the Court's inherent authority to “fashion
`
`an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses
`
`the judicial
`
`process." Doctor's Assocs. v. Distajo, 66 F.3d 438, 456 (2d Cir.
`
`1995)
`
`(quoting Chambers V. Nasco,
`
`501 U.S. at
`
`44—45.)
`
`When
`
`confronted with a_pro se litigant such as the plaintiff, the courts
`
`have in appropriate instances responded by completely enjoining him
`
`-from the filing of certain categories of cases.
`
`See, e.g.,
`
`In re
`
`McDonald, 489 U.S. at
`
`l84~85 (barring pro se litigant from filing
`
`any new petitions for extraoridinary writs); Martin—Trigona, 9 F.3d
`
`at 228-229
`
`(summarizing cases
`
`in which courts have completely
`
`foreclosed “vexatious litigants” from filing designated categories
`
`of cases). While some courts have imposed “lesser” sanctions, such
`
`as
`
`fines or nmnetary sanctions,
`
`in attempt
`
`to deter
`
`a pro se_
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 8 of 12
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 8 of 12
`
`litigant
`
`like Ms. Collins,
`
`such a
`
`sanction would seenl
`
`to be
`
`ineffective to deter
`
`this plaintiff because
`
`she
`
`has
`
`always
`
`qualified for in forma pauperis status and her only income appears
`
`to be some type of government benefits.
`
`(Docket No. 2, Application
`
`to Proceed In Forma Pauperis). Not only would a monetary sanction
`
`or
`
`fine most
`
`likely go unpaid,
`
`it could also work an unusual
`
`hardship on plaintiff.
`
`Accordingly, this Court finds that the appropriate sanction to
`
`deter any more frivolous and repetitious filings by plaintiff is to
`
`enjoin her from making any future filings without first obtaining
`
`Court permission.
`
`The Court notes that it has the discretion to
`
`impose a complete and full filing injunction at
`
`this time but
`
`finds,
`
`for
`
`the time being,
`
`that
`
`the “lesser” sanction of not
`
`allowing any future filings without prior Court permission should
`
`be sufficient to deter any further frivolous or baseless filings by
`
`plaintiff.
`
`Lastly,
`
`the general rule in this Circuit is that an injunction
`
`against future filings cannot be ordered unless the litigant is
`
`provided notice of the Court's intention to enjoin her from filing
`
`future cases and an opportunity to be heard with respect
`
`to the
`
`Court's intention to impose such an injunction.
`
`_ee Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P.
`
`ll(c)(l)(B); see, e.g., Perpetual Sec.,
`
`Inc. v. Tang, 290 F.3d
`
`132, 141 n.
`
`2
`
`(2002)
`
`(if a district court determines that Rule ll
`
`sanctions are appropriately imposed, “the court must allow the
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 9 of 12
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 9 of 12
`
`party threatened with sanctions to respond”); see also Moates v.
`
`Barkley, 147 F.3d 207,
`
`208
`
`(2d. Circ. 1998)
`
`(per curiam)
`
`(“The
`
`unequivocal rule in this circuit is that the district court may not
`
`impose
`
`a
`
`filing injunction on
`
`a
`
`litigant
`
`sua
`
`sponte without
`
`providing the
`
`litigant with an opportunity to be heard.”).
`
`Accordingly, plaintiff shall file ,
`
`by December 31, 2007,
`
`an
`
`affidavit not
`
`to exceed five (5) pages in length explaining why
`
`this Court
`
`should not
`
`impose
`
`the
`
`sanction described above.
`
`Plaintiff's failure to file an affidavit or explain why
`
`the
`
`sanction described above shall not be imposed will cause the Court
`
`to impose said sanction.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Plaintiff has met
`
`the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ l9l5(a). Accordingly, plaintiff's request
`
`to proceed in forma
`
`pauperis is granted and,
`
`for
`
`the reasons discussed above,
`
`the
`
`complaint
`
`is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ l9l5(e)(2)(S)(i), and plaintiff's application for service by the
`
`U.S. Marshal is denied as moot.
`
`The Court
`
`hereby certifies,
`
`pursuant
`
`to
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§
`
`l9l5(a)(3),
`
`that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in
`
`good faith, and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor
`
`person is denied. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962).
`
`Further requests to proceed on appeal as a poor person should be
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 10 of 12
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 10 of 12
`
`directed, on motion,
`
`to the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Second Circuit,
`
`in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Appellate Procedure.
`
`Additionally, plaintiff will not be permitted to file any
`
`further actions of any type with this Court, unless she shows cause
`
`by December 31, 2007, why the sanction described above should not
`
`be imposed.
`
`ORDER
`
`IT HEREBY IS ORDERED,
`
`that plaintiff's request to proceed in
`
`forma pauperis (Docket No. 2)
`
`is granted, and her application for
`
`service by the U.S. Marshal is (Docket No. 3)
`
`is denied;
`
`FURTHER,
`
`that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice;
`
`FURTHER,
`
`that leave to appeal
`
`to the Court of Appeals as a
`
`poor person is denied; and
`
`FURTHER, that plaintiff shall submit by December 31, 2007, an
`
`affidavit not to exceed five (5) pages explaining why this Court
`
`should not
`
`impose the sanction described above to wit:
`
`that she
`
`shall be prohibited from filing any further actions with this
`
`court without first obtaining written permission from the court to
`
`do so; and
`
`FURTHER,
`
`that if plaintiff fails to file an affidavit by
`
`December 31, 2007, as directed, the following sanction will become
`
`effective without further order of the court:
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 11 of 12
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 11 of 12
`
`Plaintiff may not file any additional actions, of any type,
`
`in this Court without first obtaining the prior approval of the
`
`Court.
`
`The Clerk of the Court
`
`is directed to not file any future
`
`(“new”) actions, of any type,
`
`submitted by Lisa Susan Collins
`
`until the Court has determined whether it has jurisdiction over
`
`the claims;
`
`the allegations in fact are warranted by existing law
`
`or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or
`
`reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; or the
`
`action is not frivolous, baseless, repetitious, vexatious or not
`
`filed simply to annoy or harass.
`
`If the Court determines that the
`
`submission should be accepted for
`
`filing,
`
`the Court will
`
`so
`
`direct.
`
`In the event a future complaint or action is determined
`
`to be insufficient for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or to
`
`be otherwise frivolous, baseless, repetitious, vexatious or filed
`
`simply to annoy or harass,
`
`the complaint shall be dismissed with
`
`prejudice by summary Order citing to this Decision and Order.
`
`Only upon a determination that a
`
`future or new action may go
`
`forward shall the Court direct the Clerk of the Court to cause the
`
`United States Marshals Service to serve the defendants or to issue
`
`summonses. Unless and until the Court enters
`
`an Order directing
`
`the Clerk of the Court to cause the United States Marshals Service
`
`to serve a summons and complaint on the
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00725-WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 12 of 12
`Case 1:07—cv—00725—WMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 12 of 12
`
`defendants or to issue summonses, no defendant shall be required
`
`to answer or otherwise respond.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`S/ Michael A. Telesca
`
`
`
`MICHAEL A. TELESCA
`
`United States District Judge
`
`Dated:
`
`November 29, 2007
`Rochester, New York
`
`12
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
