In Re: Carmine P. Amelio
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-08769
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Re: Carmine P. Amelio: Carmine P. Amelio asked the court to reconsider an e-filing denial, but no ruling appears; Judge Daniels is identified.
Carmine P. Amelio, who filed the motion as a self-represented debtor, and the three listed matters concerning his request to use electronic filing.
What happened
In Re: Carmine P. Amelio concerns Carmine P. Amelio’s request to reconsider a May 18, 2020 order that allegedly denied permission to use electronic filing in three listed matters. The filing identifies Amelio as a debtor representing himself.
Amelio argued that the court should provide written findings of fact and legal conclusions, citing a rule about decisions after non-jury trials. He also said he planned to seek a stay while appealing and therefore needed to make an initial request in the District Court.
The provided text is Amelio’s motion, not a court ruling, so it does not show whether the request was granted or denied. Judge Daniels is identified as the judge, but the text contains no ruling by him.
The detailed version
- In Re: Carmine P. Amelio · No. 1:18-cv-08769
- George Daniels
- May 21, 2020
Document and posture
The provided text is titled “Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” It is submitted by Carmine P. Amelio, identified as the debtor and as representing himself. The text does not contain a court decision or an order disposing of this motion.
Requested relief
Amelio asks the court to reconsider what he describes as a “void Order” dated May 18, 2020. According to the motion, that order denied his request for permission to participate in electronic filing in the three listed matters. He alternatively asks the court to provide findings of fact—written factual determinations—and conclusions of law—written legal conclusions—supporting the denial.
Arguments cited in the motion
The motion discusses Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1), which concerns written findings and legal conclusions after a trial without a jury. It also cites Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8, which generally requires a party seeking a stay of a district-court judgment or order during an appeal to first request that relief from the district court. Amelio states that he plans to file a motion for a stay pending appeal concerning the listed matters.
Disposition
No disposition appears in the provided text. The text therefore does not establish whether Judge George Daniels or the court granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.