UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No Honorable David M.
|
|
- Lillian Harrell
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KENNETH COX, JR. v. Plaintiff, Case No Honorable David M. Lawson CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., AUDBERTO ANTONINI, DR. CLARK, DR. DOYLE, DR. KIM, DR. MESSANY, DR. PANDYA, DR. STEEL, G. COTTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DAVID DEGRAAF, KARMEN BLOUNT, MS. BLACK, MR. LOCKHART, JEAN MARIE KING, JAYNA SHARPLEY, P.A. SHERMAN, PEGGY LEE, SERGEANT HODGKINS, and SERGEANT SAWYER, Defendants. / ORDER ADOPTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, OVERRULING PLAINTIFF S OBJECTIONS, AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The plaintiff, a prisoner serving a lengthy sentence in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, filed this action pro se alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by prison officials who provided inadequate medical care that resulted in his blindness. Via 42 U.S.C. 1983, he brings his claims under the Eighth Amendment, and he also alleges that he faces the threat of retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. In addition, the plaintiff contends that the defendants have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C , et seq. (ADA), by failing to provide aid to him to accommodate his blindness. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder for general case management. The plaintiff then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking (1) a temporary restraining order preventing the [MDOC] from arbitrarily transferring him from prison to prison for the duration of legal proceedings
2 in [this case] ; and (2) a preliminary injunction ordering the MDOC to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and provide Plaintiff with the devices, aids and conveniences necessary to accommodate his disability. Pl. s Mot. for Inj. at 1-2. The magistrate judge filed a report dealing with the first part of the plaintiff s motion, recommending that it be denied. The magistrate judge did not address the second part of the request for relief. The plaintiff filed timely objections. The Court has reviewed the motion papers de novo and concludes that the motion should be denied. I. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the plaintiff s motion insofar as it sought an injunction preventing his transfer to other prisons. He concluded that the [p]laintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits because the potential transfer is not a deprivation of a right secured by the United States Constitution or laws of the United States that would entitle him to relief under 42 U.S.C R&R at 2. He reasoned that a prisoner has no liberty interest in interprison transfers. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, (1976). The plaintiff objects on the ground that the focus of the inquiry should have been on the likelihood of success on the merits of the plaintiff s underlying Eighth Amendment and ADA claims, not the retaliation claim ostensibly addressed by the motion. This Court recently summarized the standard governing motions for preliminary injunctions in Hacker v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2006 WL (E.D. Mich. 2006) (slip copy). In Hacker, the Court explained as follows: This Court must consider four factors when determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction: (1) the likelihood of the party s success on the merits of the claim; (2) whether the injunction will save the party from irreparable injury; (3) the probability that granting the injunction will substantially harm others; and (4) whether the public interest will be served by the injunction. Summit County Democratic Cent. and Executive Comm. v. Blackwell, 388 F.3d 547, 552 (6th Cir. -2-
3 2004); Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Productions, 134 F.3d 749, 753 (6th Cir. 1998); Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., Inc., 119 F.3d 393, 399 (6th Cir. 1997); Frisch s Rest., Inc. v. Shoney s, Inc., 759 F.2d 1261, 1263 (6th Cir. 1985). The Sixth Circuit has explained that one purpose of a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 is to preserve the status quo so that a reasoned resolution of a dispute may be had. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 227 (6th Cir. 1996). [T]he four factors are not prerequisites to be met, but rather must be balanced as part of a decision to grant or deny injunctive relief. Performance Unlimited v. Questar Publishers, Inc., 52 F.3d 1373, 1381 (6th Cir. 1995). The district court need not make specific findings regarding each of the four factors if fewer factors are dispositive of the issue. See Six Clinics Holding Corp., 119 F.3d at 399. Although no one factor is controlling, a finding that there is simply no likelihood of success on the merits is usually fatal. Gonzales v. Nat l Bd. of Med. Exam rs, 225 F.3d 620, 625 (6th Cir. 2000). The plaintiffs burden is the same irrespective of whether the relief sought is mandatory or prohibitive. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Southwest Ohio Reg l Transit Auth., 163 F.3d 341, 348 (6th Cir. 1998). The Sixth Circuit has instructed that the likelihood-of-success factor should be analyzed in conjunction with the other factors in the following manner: In applying this test, we balance the factors. The Appellant must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits to a degree inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable harm that will be suffered if a stay does not issue. [I]n order to justify a stay of the district court s ruling, the [Appellant] must demonstrate at least serious questions going to the merits and irreparable harm that decidedly outweighs the harm that will be inflicted on others if a stay is granted. Family Trust Found. of Kentucky, Inc. v. Kentucky Judicial Conduct Comm n, 388 F.3d 224, 227 (6th Cir. 2004). Although the court of appeals analyzed likelihood of success when reviewing a motion for stay pending appeal, the tests are identical. Blackwell, 388 F.3d at 552 (stating the factors to be considered in determining whether an order should be stayed are the same factors considered in determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order [or] a preliminary injunction ). -3-
4 Id. at *7-8. When analyzing the factor of the likelihood of the party s success on the merits of the claim, courts uniformly determine whether the moving party will prevail on the claim which underlies the party s request for injunctive relief. See, e.g., Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Amouri s Grand Foods, Inc., 453 F.3d 377, , 383 (6th Cir. 2006) (directing district court to enter preliminary injunction against the sale of counterfeit cigarette packages when moving party established that it would likely prevail on underlying claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition). In other words, if a party seeks a preliminary injunction to bar the defendant from violating a specific right, the court must discern whether the moving party will likely prevail on a claim that the particular right was or is being violated. Here, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent[] the [MDOC] from arbitrarily transferring him from prison to prison for the duration of legal proceedings in [this case]. Pl. s Mot. for Inj. at 1. In his brief in support of this motion, the plaintiff plainly states that he bases his request for injunctive relief on the grounds that he has been retaliated against for writing grievances and filing this action. Brf. in Supp. at 2. Therefore, in determining whether the injunction should be granted, the magistrate judge appropriately evaluated the likelihood of the plaintiff s success on his First Amendment retaliation claim. R & R at 3. The magistrate judge also evaluated whether the plaintiff could succeed on his claim that the defendants provided him with inadequate medical treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Ibid. (explaining that, [a]lthough transfer may be inconvenient, it does not rise to the level of constituting a wanton infliction of pain, or cruel and unusual punishment). The magistrate judge performed the proper analysis and reached the correct result. The plaintiff s first objection will be overruled. -4-
5 II. The plaintiff s second objection challenges that magistrate judge s overlooking the plaintiff s other request for relief: that the defendants be compelled to furnish him with assistance to accommodate his disability. The Court agrees that the magistrate judge did not discuss this aspect of the plaintiff s motion. However, the Court finds that the plaintiff has not established that the relevant factors militate in favor of a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff s complaint generously can be read to allege that the defendants have violated his rights under the ADA by failing to provide him various accommodations for his vision problems. He seeks the following accommodations: (1) a prisoner aid someone he can trust, who is paid by the institution to help him get to call-outs, the mess hall and store... to guide and protect him from danger and to check the medications health care distributes to him ; (2) a cassette tape player so he can receive and listen to books recorded on tape and provided by services for the blind ; (3) a key padlock so he can secure his personal belongings in a locked locker ; and (4) an early chow detail and a diet to accommodate his diabetes. Pl. s Brf. in Supp. at 4. The Supreme Court has held that the ADA prohibits state prisons from discriminating against inmates on account of their disabilities. Pennsylvania Dep t. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, (1998). Since Yeskey, the Ninth Circuit has held that the ADA requires correctional facilities to provide disabled inmates with reasonable accommodations to enable them to attend parol hearings, Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2001), and other courts have held that prison officials have a general duty to provide reasonable accommodations to their disabled inmates, see, e.g., McIntyre v. Robinson, 126 F. Supp. 2d 394, 409 (D. Md. 2000) (explaining that, since Yeskey, it has to be said that there was a -5-
6 clearly established constitutional right of prisoners to be free from unreasonable levels of [environmental tobacco smoke] and, to the extent that a prisoner might otherwise qualify under the ADA, that the prisoner would be entitled to damages for the prison s failure to provide reasonable accommodation for his disability ). Here, it has not been established that the MDOC s duty to provide reasonable accommodations would dictate that it supply all of the items requested by the plaintiff. See 42 U.S.C (9) (providing that reasonable accommodations may include making existing facilities... readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities and the acquisition or modification of equipment or devices ). Moreover, the thrust of the plaintiff s argument does not appear to be that the defendants have refused to accommodate him. Rather, he contends that a short time after as he receives certain aid for blind people from the facility, he is transferred to another prison and must start anew to acquire the aids and devices to permit a blind person to survive in the prison setting. The likelihood of success on the merits of the ADA claim, therefore, is far from certain. Next, to demonstrate irreparable harm, the plaintiff must show that without the injunction he will suffer actual and imminent harm rather than harm that is speculative or unsubstantiated. Abney v. Amgem, Inc., 443 F.3d 540, 552 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotes omitted). The plaintiff has failed to show that he will suffer irreparable harm if the Court declines to issue an injunction requiring the defendants to provide the requested accommodations. Although he suggests that he faces a risk of being taken advantage of by other prisoners or consuming the wrong medication, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that this potential harm is actual and imminent rather than merely speculative. -6-
7 The third factor whether providing the requested relief would substantially harm others weighs slightly in favor of the injunction. As mentioned above, the ADA applies to prison officials and requires them to reasonably accommodate disabled inmates. See Yeskey, 524 U.S. at ; McIntyre, 126 F. Supp. 2d at 409. Although it has not been demonstrated that the MDOC has a duty to provide all of the items requested by the plaintiff, it likely must furnish some of them, and the plaintiff acknowledges that it has provided some aid to the plaintiff in other institutions. Therefore, requiring the defendants to provide some of the accommodations would not cause them substantial harm. The fourth factor, whether the public interest will be served by the injunction, may also weigh slightly in favor of granting the injunction. Generally, the public interest is served by preventing violations of the law. See Chabad of Southern Ohio & Congregation Lubavitch v. City of Cincinnati, 363 F.3d 427, 436 (6th Cir. 2004). Therefore, to the extent that defendant MDOC has a duty under the ADA to provide the plaintiff with the accommodations he seeks, the granting of the injunction serves the public interest. Nonetheless, the balance of the factors does not militate in favor of a preliminary injunction. The two most important factors (likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm) point toward denial. See, e.g., Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Adams, 151 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 1998) (identifying likelihood of success on the merits as the most important factor); TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. v. Atrix Laboratories, Inc., 2004 WL , *1 n.1 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (suggesting that [i]rreparable harm and reasonable likelihood of success are generally thought to be the most important factors in determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue ). Although the Sixth Circuit has held that no one factor is a prerequisite to obtaining -7-
8 injunctive relief, Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002), absent some showing of irreparable harm, an injunction is generally inappropriate. See Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 422 U.S. 49, 61 (1975). Therefore, because the plaintiff has shown only the speculative possibility of irreparable harm, and given that the other factors do not emphatically militate in favor of injunctive relief, the Court will deny the plaintiff s motion for an injunction mandating the MDOC provide him with the requested accommodations. III. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge s report as to the first part of the plaintiff s motion for a preliminary injunction, and the Court finds that the plaintiff has not demonstrated a right to the relief he seeks under the ADA pending the ultimate determination of the merits of his claims. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff s objections to the magistrate judge s recommendation and report are OVERRULED, and the recommendation and report is ADOPTED in part. DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff s motion for a preliminary injunction [dkt # 48] is It is further ORDERED that the matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings pursuant to the original order of reference. Dated: October 25, 2006 s/david M. Lawson DAVID M. LAWSON United States District Judge -8-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION RONALD HACKER, v. Petitioner, Case Number: 06-12425-BC Honorable David M. Lawson FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Case Manager T.A.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION DOUGLAS DODSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORECIVIC, et al., Defendants. NO. 3:17-cv-00048 JUDGE CAMPBELL MAGISTRATE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. v. ) Case No. 1:16-cv (APM) MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) CIGAR ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:16-cv-01460 (APM) ) U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ) ADMINISTRATION, et al., )
More informationCase 2:14-cv JTF-dkv Document 20 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID 182
Case 2:14-cv-02292-JTF-dkv Document 20 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID 182 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION SHANE PRATT; JODI PRATT; CHRIS WHITE;
More informationCase: Document: Filed: 12/31/2013 Page: 1 (1 of 7) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: December 31, 2013
Case: 13-6640 Document: 006111923519 Filed: 12/31/2013 Page: 1 (1 of 7 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO STATE EX. REL DAVID YOST, ET AL. Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. C2-04-1139 (ES/TK v. NATIONAL VOTING RIGHTS INSTITUTE, ET AL. Defendants
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Smith v. Sniezek Doc. 7 Case 4:07-cv-00366-DAP Document 7 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO GARY CHARLES SMITH, ) CASE NO. 4:07 CV 0366 ) Petitioner, )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION AMERICAN PULVERIZER CO., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 12-3459-CV-S-RED ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 2:16-cv-00212-GCS-EPD Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/11/16 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: 673 RANDY SMITH, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiffs, -v- JON A. HUSTED,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Lucas County Democratic Party, et al. Case No. 3:04CV7646 Plaintiffs v. ORDER J. Kenneth Blackwell, Defendant This
More informationU.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit January 25, 2006 Related Index Numbers. Appeal from the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio
Jacob WINKELMAN, a minor, by and through his parents and legal guardians, Jeff and Sandee WINKELMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appelle U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Gresham v. Colorado Department of Corrections and Employees et al Doc. 81 Civil Action No. 16-cv-00841-RM-MJW JAMES ROBERT GRESHAM, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT HIMSCHOOT, and JASON LENGERICH, Defendants. IN THE
More information***THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE*** ***EXECUTIONS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 20, 24, and 27, 2017*** No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
***THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE*** ***EXECUTIONS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 20, 24, and 27, 2017*** No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JASON McGEHEE, STACEY JOHNSON, BRUCE WARD, TERRICK NOONER, JACK JONES,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: March 31, 2014
Case: 14-1090 Document: 36-1 Filed: 03/31/2014 Page: 1 (1 of 5 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE
More informationCase 4:15-cv CVE-PJC Document 32 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/31/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 4:15-cv-00386-CVE-PJC Document 32 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/31/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. E. Scott Pruitt, in his official
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT NELSON, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) v. ) No. 07- ) NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ) ADMINISTRATION, et al., ) ) ) Defendants-Appellees.
More informationF I L E D May 2, 2013
Case: 12-50114 Document: 00512227991 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D May
More informationCase 3:15-cv DJH Document 19 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 984
Case 3:15-cv-00075-DJH Document 19 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 984 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-75-DJH KENTUCKY EMPLOYEES
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION DORDT COLLEGE and CORNERSTONE UNIVERSITY, vs. Plaintiffs, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
1 SCALIA, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 13A452 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS SUR- GICAL HEALTH SERVICES ET AL. v. GREGORY ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS ET AL. ON APPLICATION
More informationCase 4:12-cv DLH-CSM Document 17 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 10
Case 4:12-cv-00058-DLH-CSM Document 17 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA NORTHWESTERN DIVISION Dish Network Service LLC, ) ) ORDER DENYING
More informationCase3:14-cv JST Document116 Filed04/27/15 Page1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-00-JST Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHELLE-LAEL B. NORSWORTHY, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY BEARD, et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-00-jst
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION JEFFREY A. WOLGAST, Plaintiff, Civil No. 05-10278-BC v. Hon. David M. Lawson Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder TAWAS POLICE
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-27-2009 USA v. Marshall Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4778 Follow this and additional
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0071n.06 Filed: January 26, No
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0071n.06 Filed: January 26, 2006 No. 04-3431 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:16-cv-01045-F Document 19 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JOHN DAUGOMAH, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-16-1045-D LARRY ROBERTS,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BARBARA GRUTTER, vs. Plaintiff, LEE BOLLINGER, et al., Civil Action No. 97-CV-75928-DT HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN Defendants. and
More information1999 WL United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
1999 WL 1068669 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. Milton WILLIAMS, Jr. Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Joliet Correctional Center; Dr. Sood; Officer Curtis;
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No: 99-CV BC v. Honorable David M.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION JAMIE MEADE, Plaintiff, Case No: 99-CV-10011-BC v. Honorable David M. Lawson M. PLUMMER and MR. DAVIS, Defendants. / OPINION
More informationCase 1:11-cv RHS-WDS Document 5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:11-cv-00946-RHS-WDS Document 5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO LOS ALAMOS STUDY GROUP, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
More informationJohn Gerholt, Sr. v. Donald Orr, Jr.
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-19-2015 John Gerholt, Sr. v. Donald Orr, Jr. Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
More informationCase 5:10-cv JLH Document 12 Filed 03/11/2010 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Case 5:10-cv-00065-JLH Document 12 Filed 03/11/2010 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION JACK HAROLD JONES, JR. PLAINTIFF v. No. 5:10CV00065
More information2:16-cv NGE-EAS Doc # 27 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 626 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:16-cv-14183-NGE-EAS Doc # 27 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 626 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Petitioner, Case No.16-14183
More informationJuan Diaz, Jr. v. Warden Lewisburg USP
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-18-2015 Juan Diaz, Jr. v. Warden Lewisburg USP Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
LATOYA PORTER-SUMMEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case Number 03-10050 Honorable David M. Lawson v. Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder THOMAS
More informationCase 3:19-cv DJH Document 21 Filed 03/20/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 254
Case 3:19-cv-00178-DJH Document 21 Filed 03/20/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 254 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION EMW WOMEN S SURGICAL CENTER, P.S.C. and ERNEST
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
In re: Martin Tarin Franco Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE A-09-MC-508-SS MARTIN TARIN FRANCO ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
More informationCase 4:15-cv KGB Document 157 Filed 07/20/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION
Case 4:15-cv-00784-KGB Document 157 Filed 07/20/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION PLANNED PARENTHOOD ARKANSAS and EASTERN OKLAHOMA, d/b/a
More informationTony Mutschler v. Brenda Tritt
2017 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-13-2017 Tony Mutschler v. Brenda Tritt Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2017
More informationCase: 2:16-cv GCS-EPD Doc #: 84 Filed: 10/17/16 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 23383
Case: 2:16-cv-00303-GCS-EPD Doc #: 84 Filed: 10/17/16 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 23383 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, NORTHEAST
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Walter C. Chruby v. No. 291 C.D. 2010 Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Prison Health Services, Inc. Appeal of Pennsylvania Department
More informationNOTICE OF ENTRY OF MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX DEBORAH V. APPLEYARD,M.D. GOVERNOR JUAN F. LUIS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER Plaintiff vs CASE NO. SX-14-CV-0000282 ACTION FOR: INJUNCTIVE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANDREW J. GUILFORD ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case 8:10-cv-00402-AG-MLG Document 21 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 8 Present: The Honorable ANDREW J. GUILFORD Lisa Bredahl Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #19-5042 Document #1779028 Filed: 03/24/2019 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : DAMIEN GUEDUES, et al., : : No. 19-5042 Appellants : : Consolidated
More informationCase 1:05-cv JGP Document 79 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:05-cv-01181-JGP Document 79 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHIGAN GAMBLING OPPOSITION ( MichGO, a Michigan non-profit corporation, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Diskriter, Inc. v. Alecto Healthcare Services Ohio Valley LLC et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA DISKRITER, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA David Payo, : Appellant : : v. : : PA Department of Corrections, : Wexford Health, : No. 845 C.D. 2014 Doctor Mohammad Naji : Submitted: September 12, 2014 BEFORE:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION LARRY BAGSBY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 00-CV-10153-BC Honorable David M. Lawson TINA GEHRES, DENNIS GEHRES, LOIS GEHRES, RUSSELL
More informationCase 4:16-cv RGE-CFB Document 6 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 10
Case 4:16-cv-00482-RGE-CFB Document 6 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION DAKOTA ACCESS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. IOWA CITIZENS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
OHIO A. PHILLIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 2:16-cv-303 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH Magistrate Judge Deavers JON
More informationDomingo Colon-Montanez v. Richard Keller
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-6-2016 Domingo Colon-Montanez v. Richard Keller Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More information0:11-cv CMC Date Filed 10/08/13 Entry Number 131 Page 1 of 11
0:11-cv-02993-CMC Date Filed 10/08/13 Entry Number 131 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Torrey Josey, ) C/A No. 0:11-2993-CMC-SVH )
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 22 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:619
Case: 1:12-cv-07163 Document #: 22 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:619 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION TORY BURCH LLC; RIVER LIGHT V, L.P.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 113-cv-00544-RWS Document 16 Filed 03/04/13 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION THE DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT and DR. EUGENE
More informationCase 1:17-cv TSC Document 29 Filed 12/23/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-02069-TSC Document 29 Filed 12/23/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, as Next Friend, on behalf of Unnamed
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Kenneth Fortune, Petitioner v. No. 644 M.D. 2012 John E. Wetzel, Submitted April 5, 2013 Respondent OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM FILED June
More informationCase: 3:13-cv bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9
Case: 3:13-cv-00346-bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 20, 2008 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT MYOUN L. SAWYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 08-3067 v. (D.
More informationPart Description 1 12 pages 2 Exhibit 1: Printouts from CBOE websites
The Ohio Organizing Collaborative et al v. Husted et al, Docket No. 2:15-cv-01802 (S.D. Ohio May 08, 2015), Court Docket Part Description 1 12 pages 2 Exhibit 1: Printouts from CBOE websites Multiple Documents
More informationbrought suit against Defendants on March 30, Plaintiff Restraining Order (docs. 3, 4), and a Motion for Judicial Notice
West v. Olens et al Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION MARQUIS B. WEST, Plaintiff, v. CV 616-038 SAM OLENS, et al., Defendants. ORDER Pending
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case Number Honorable David M.
Grange Insurance Company of Michigan v. Parrish et al Doc. 159 GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Case Number
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT David W. Frank Christopher C. Myers & Associates Fort Wayne, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Stephen R. Creason Chief Counsel Indianapolis,
More informationKalu Kalu v. Warden Moshannon Valley Correc
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-12-2016 Kalu Kalu v. Warden Moshannon Valley Correc Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case Number BC v. Honorable David M.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case Number 03-20028-BC v. Honorable David M. Lawson DERRICK GIBSON, Defendant. / OPINION
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-12-2008 Nickens v. Dept Corr Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2207 Follow this and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***
Case: 5:17-cv-00351-DCR Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/15/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 440 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington THOMAS NORTON, et al., V. Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 3:15-cv SI Document 23 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 3:15-cv-01389-SI Document 23 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON HEATHER ANDERSON, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:15-cv-01389-SI OPINION AND ORDER v.
More informationMemorandum of Law. Subject: Legal Summary For TASER Conducted Energy Weapons
Memorandum of Law http://www.taser.com/documents/memorandumoflaw.doc Date: May 3, 2004 To: Distribution From: Douglas E. Klint, Vice President and General Counsel Subject: Legal Summary For TASER Conducted
More informationFROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POWHATAN COUNTY Paul W. Cella, Judge
PRESENT: All the Justices JOHN ALBERT ANDERSON OPINION BY v. Record No. 171562 JUSTICE D. ARTHUR KELSEY MARCH 21, 2019 JEFFREY N. DILLMAN, WARDEN, FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER FOR WOMEN, ET AL. FROM THE
More informationLeroy Jackson v. City of Philadelphia
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-31-2013 Leroy Jackson v. City of Philadelphia Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-2986
More informationCase 4:08-cv RP-RAW Document 34 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 4:08-cv-00370-RP-RAW Document 34 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION CARL OLSEN, ) ) Civil No. 4:08-cv-00370 (RWP/RAW) Plaintiff, )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 302 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CAREY DALE GRAYSON, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON S.
More informationCase 2:12-cv JFC Document 152 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:12-cv-00207-JFC Document 152 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GENEVA COLLEGE; WAYNE L. HEPLER; THE SENECA HARDWOOD LUMBER COMPANY,
More informationCASE NO. 1D the dismissal with prejudice of appellant s four-time amended complaint. Upon
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CHARLES J. DAVIS, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D13-2119
More informationIntroduction. On September 13, 1994, President Clinton signed into. law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
~» C JJ 0 ` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,,, _- - EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI '.! EASTERN DIVISION MMA"' BILLY JOE TYLER, et al., ) ¾ 'I -1 Plaintiffs, ) > ) vs. ) ) Cause No. 74-40-C (4) UNITED STATES
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,849 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. EDWARD L. CLEMMONS, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,849 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS EDWARD L. CLEMMONS, Appellant, v. KANSAS SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal
More informationLeslie Mollett v. Leicth
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-25-2013 Leslie Mollett v. Leicth Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-4369 Follow this
More informationCase 1:08-cv RMU Document 53 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-00380-RMU Document 53 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPALACHIAN VOICES, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 08-0380 (RMU) : v.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 14a0184p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RICHARD WERSHE, JR., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, THOMAS
More informationLITIGATING IMMIGRATION DETENTION CONDITIONS 1
LITIGATING IMMIGRATION DETENTION CONDITIONS 1 Tom Jawetz ACLU National Prison Project 915 15 th St. N.W., 7 th Floor Washington, DC 20005 (202) 393-4930 tjawetz@npp-aclu.org I. The Applicable Legal Standard
More informationCase 3:06-cv KKC Document 5-1 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 1 of 14
Case 3:06-cv-00022-KKC Document 5-1 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 1 of 14 BRIAN KEITH MOORE, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY FRANKFORT DIVISION A F R 4 ~ ~ ~ O ~ r LEsLi.E
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims CHEROKEE NATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, v. Plaintiff, THE UNITED STATES, and Defendant. CHENEGA FEDERAL SYSTEMS, LLC, No. 14-371C (Filed Under Seal: June 10, 2014)
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 419 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6761
Case: 1:13-cv-01524 Document #: 419 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6761 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BRIAN LUCAS, ARONZO DAVIS, and NORMAN GREEN, on
More informationAmerican population, and without any legal standards or restrictions, challenge the voter
R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge, dissenting. We have before us today a matter of historic proportions. In this appeal, partisan challengers, for the first time since the civil rights era, seek to target
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Case:-cv-0-SBA Document Filed// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ROBERT BOXER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs.
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. In re: CHRISTOPHER KNECHT, Petitioner.
No. 12-3173 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT In re: CHRISTOPHER KNECHT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Southern District
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 43 Filed: 12/22/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:435 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 43 Filed: 12/22/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:435 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CHRISTOPHER YEP, MARY ANNE YEP, AND TRIUNE HEALTH GROUP,
More informationCase: /20/2014 ID: DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 13) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 12-16258 03/20/2014 ID: 9023773 DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 13) FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationAttorney Grievance Commission, et al. v. Ty Clevenger, No. 64, September Term, 2017
Attorney Grievance Commission, et al. v. Ty Clevenger, No. 64, September Term, 2017 JURISDICTION WRIT OF MANDAMUS ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION INVESTIGATIONS The Court of Appeals held that Bar Counsel
More informationCase 1:10-cv RBJ-KMT Document 80 Filed 03/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14
Case 1:10-cv-01005-RBJ-KMT Document 80 Filed 03/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14 Civil Action No. 10-cv-01005-RBJ-KMT TROY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH. Plaintiff, Maximino Arriaga, brings civil-rights claims against Utah State Prison (USP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH MAXIMINO ARRIAGA, Plaintiff, v. SIDNEY ROBERTS et al. Defendants. MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS AND GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
More informationRide the Ducks Phila v. Duck Boat Tours Inc
2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-6-2005 Ride the Ducks Phila v. Duck Boat Tours Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-2954
More informationNaem Waller v. David Varano
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-4-2014 Naem Waller v. David Varano Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-2277 Follow this
More informationMervin John v. Secretary Army
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-5-2012 Mervin John v. Secretary Army Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-4223 Follow this
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Hartstein v. Pollman et al Doc. 95 KAREN HARTSTEIN, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS v. Case No. 13-cv-1232-JPG-PMF L. POLLMAN, DR. D. KRUSE and WARDEN OF GREENVILLE
More informationWayne Pritchett v. Richard Ellers
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-28-2009 Wayne Pritchett v. Richard Ellers Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1669 Follow
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TIMOTHY ADER, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 21, 2015 v No. 320096 Saginaw Circuit Court DELTA COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, LC No. 08-001822-CZ Defendant-Appellee.
More informationCase: 5:16-cv JRA Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/30/16 1 of 8. PageID #: 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:16-cv-02889-JRA Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/30/16 1 of 8. PageID #: 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL PENNEL, JR.,, vs. Plaintiff/Movant, NATIONAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JANE DOE,
Doe v. Samuel Merritt University et al Doc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL MERRITT UNIVERSITY, Defendant. Case
More information