Leo v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation et al, No. 6:2020cv07039 - Document 25 (W.D.N.Y. 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER denying 23 Petition. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 5/6/21. (BJJ)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Leo v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation et al Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CARRIE M. LEO, Plaintiff, v. Case # 20-CV-7039-FPG DECISION AND ORDER NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, et al., Defendants. On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff commenced this action against various state and federal entities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff challenges what she says are years of Defendants’ abusive and conspiratorial conduct targeting her wildlife center, which led to the theft of her wild animals, the revocation of her licenses, and the wildlife center’s ultimate demise. On May 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Petition for Review of Agency Final Determination Made by ALJ & Complaint of Deprivation of Rights.” ECF No. 23. In it, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an Order from the United States Department of Agriculture, entered on February 26, 2021, terminating her Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) License 21-C-0435. ECF No. 23 at 1-2. Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2149, an aggrieved AWA licensee may, “within 60 days after entry” of “a final order of the Secretary,” seek review of “such order in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals.” Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Petition and it must be dismissed. Plaintiff is advised that she must file her Petition within the applicable statute of limitations in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 6, 2021 Rochester, New York ___________________________________ HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR. Chief Judge United States District Court Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
