Robinson v. Coca-Cola
1:23-cv-10552
S.D.N.Y.
Nov 14, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Lakeia L. Robinson, the Plaintiff, initiated a case against Coca-Cola and other defendants in the Southern District of New York. [lines="3-8"]
  2. The Court ordered the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within sixty days on July 31, 2024, warning that non-compliance would lead to dismissal. [lines="11-14"]
  3. The Plaintiff failed to file the required amended complaint by the deadline set by the Court. [lines="15-16"]
  4. The original complaint was filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). [lines="18-19"]
  5. The Court decided to dismiss the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) due to the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. [lines="20"]

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff's failure to amend the complaint as ordered justified the dismissal of the case for lack of compliance. [lines="14-15"]
  2. Whether the Court's certification that any appeal would not be taken in good faith was appropriate under the circumstances. [lines="21-22"]

Holdings

  1. The Court held that the failure to comply with the order to file an amended complaint warranted dismissal of the case. [lines="20"]
  2. The Court determined that any appeal from the dismissal would not be taken in good faith, denying IFP status for the purpose of appeal. [lines="21-22"]

OPINION

*1 Case 1:23-cv-10552-LTS Document 10 Filed 11/14/24 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LAKEIA L. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

23-CV-10552 (LTS) -against-

ORDER OF DISMISSAL COCA-COLA, et al.,

Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:

By order dated July 31, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within sixty days. That order specified that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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 IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States , 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2024

New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge