In Re: Carmine P. Amelio
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-00314
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Re: Carmine P. Amelio: Pro se debtor asked Judge Daniels to reconsider an order denying electronic filing, but the provided text contains no ruling.
Carmine P. Amelio, who identified himself as a debtor proceeding without a lawyer, and the three listed matters involving his electronic-filing request.
What happened
In Re: Carmine P. Amelio concerns Carmine P. Amelio’s request to participate in electronic filing in three listed matters. The filing says the matters were closed.
Amelio, identifying himself as a debtor without a lawyer, asked the court to reconsider its May 18, 2020 order denying that request. He also asked for written factual findings and legal conclusions, citing rules about bench trials and stays during an appeal.
The provided text does not show a ruling on the request. Judge Daniels is identified in the case information, but the text is a motion signed by Amelio rather than a court decision.
The detailed version
- In Re: Carmine P. Amelio · No. 1:19-cv-00314
- George Daniels
- May 21, 2020
Nature of the filing
The provided text is a motion by Carmine P. Amelio, who states that he is proceeding without a lawyer. The motion seeks reconsideration of a May 18, 2020 order that allegedly denied his request for permission to participate in electronic filing in the three listed matters.
Arguments and requests
Amelio argues that the court should provide findings of fact and conclusions of law. He cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1), which concerns written findings and legal conclusions after a trial without a jury. He also states that he plans to seek a stay during an appeal and cites Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8, which generally requires a party to first request certain stay-related relief from the district court.
The motion asks the court to reconsider the May 18 order or provide findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining the denial, along with other relief.
Disposition
The provided text does not include a court ruling on this motion. It therefore does not establish whether the request for reconsideration, findings, or any other relief was granted or denied. The document is dated May 18, 2020, while the supplied case information lists May 21, 2020 as the filing date.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.