Harris v. Police Department City of New York 48th Precinct 250 Cross Bronx Expressway: Pro Se Payment of Fee Processed
Case Summary
Harris filed a pro se case against the Police Department of the City of New York's 48th Precinct in the Southern District of New York, docket number 25-cv-06681. The court processed Harris's payment of filing fees, confirming active case status.
No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.
Key Issues
- • Pro se litigant
- • Police department defendant
- • Filing fee processed
Docket Snapshot
Court
S.D.N.Y.
Southern District of New York · 2nd Circuit · NY
Docket
Not captured
Civil
Stage
Active litigation
Active
Filed
Date unavailable
Not in the available feed
Latest Filing
1:23-cr-00594-1 USA v. HARRIS
Other · May 05, 2026
Coverage
2 articles
1 source tracked
Participants
1 Defendant, 1 Government Agency
3 linked entities
Judge
Not assigned in feed
What the record shows
This case is tied to Southern District of New York, a federal district court in NY.
The newest docket activity we have is a other dated May 05, 2026.
The visible party/entity graph currently includes Police Department City of New York 48th Precinct 250 Cross Bronx Expressway and others.
Press monitoring has found 2 related articles from 1 distinct source.
The Story So Far
Harris v. Police Department City of New York 48th Precinct 250 Cross Bronx Expressway: Pro Se Payment of Fee Processed is an active criminal matter in Southern District of New York under docket 25-cv-06681.
The main identified defendant or respondent is Police Department City of New York 48th Precinct 250 Cross Bronx Expressway. The case is currently organized around Charge status, plea posture, and court supervision, Criminal charges and procedural posture, Agency action and administrative review, Government parties, public agencies, or official-capacity claims.
The available docket gives enough signal to track the case, but not enough to overstate the merits. This page will become more useful as filings, orders, hearings, and party appearances add detail.
On May 5, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The court processed a pro se payment of a fee in the case of USA v. Harris (1:23-cr-00594-1). This means that the defendant, Harris, paid a fee without the assistance of a lawyer.
The payment was processed in the 48th Precinct of the New York City Police. On May 5, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The court processed a payment of a fee in the case of Harris v. Police Department City of New York 48th Precinct 250 Cross Bronx Expressway.
This payment was made by the plaintiff, who is representing themselves in the case. The payment is a procedural step.
The next thing to watch is whether the latest other produces a substantive order, a scheduling change, a settlement signal, or a filing that clarifies the parties' positions.
About This Court
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) is a federal district court in the 2nd Circuit, NY.
Case Timeline
2 events1:23-cr-00594-1 USA v. HARRIS
The court processed a pro se payment of a fee in the case of USA v. Harris (1:23-cr-00594-1). This means that the defendant, Harris, paid a fee without the assistance of a lawyer. The payment was processed in the 48th Precinct of the New York City Police Department.
1:25-cv-06681 Harris v. Police Department City of New York 48th Precinct 250 Cross Bronx Expressway
The court processed a payment of a fee in the case of Harris v. Police Department City of New York 48th Precinct 250 Cross Bronx Expressway. This payment was made by the plaintiff, who is representing themselves in the case. The payment is a procedural step in the ongoing litigation.
Press Coverage
1:25-cv-06681 Harris v. Police Department City of New York 48th Precinct 250 Cross Bronx Expressway
Pro Se Payment of Fee - Processed
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more
Sources tracked
1 outlet · 2 articles
Timeline events
2 records on file
Last updated
2 days, 23 hours ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.