Davis v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al
| Corey Davis |
| Federal Bureau of Prisons, Transportation Security Administration, United States Department of Homeland Security and United States Department of Justice |
| 1:2011cv00203 |
| January 6, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Allyne R. Ross |
| Andrew L. Carter |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 552 Freedom of Information Act |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
134
ORDER granting 125 Motion for Discovery. As described therein, the BOP has demonstrated that it has fully complied with the three directives contained in the Court's August 14, 2014 Summary Judgment Order as: (1) the BOP conducted an adequate records search that identified the names, register numbers, and bedding assignments of all inmates housed in cell block 3 of MDC between March 1, 2009 and May 31, 2009; and (2) properly redacted the inmate names and register numbers as exempt pursua nt to statutory exemption § 552(b)(7)(C) because this information is gathered for law enforcement purposes, implicate a significant privacy interest, and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate "that release of the information would shed light on the workings of government." Associated Press v. United States DOJ, 549 F.3d 62, 66 (2d Cir. 2008). A copy of the attached Order has been mailed to Plaintiff at the address reflected on the docket. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 4/6/2016. (Weingarten, Richard)
|
|
Filing
123
ORDER denying 110 Motion to Compel: Defendants are respectfully requested to serve this Order upon Plaintiff at the address listed on the docket and file an affidavit of service by 11/17/2015. STATUS REPORT ORDER: As explained herein, the DOJ and B OP are directed to file a letter confirming that they have complied with the Court's 8/14/2014 Order by 11/24/2015. Plaintiff is permitted to respond by 12/28/2015 and, if necessary, the DOJ and BOP may submit a reply by 1/5/2016. (Status Report due by 1/5/2016.) Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 11/10/2015. (Weingarten, Richard)
|
|
Filing
90
OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's 84 Motion for Reconsideration is denied. SO ORDERED by Judge Allyne R. Ross, on 11/20/2013. C/mailed by Chambers to pro se Plaintiff. (See document for more details.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
|
|
Filing
79
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants' 65 motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to the TSA's search for the name records, and denied as to the TSA's search for the flight record s and the electronic storage records. The motion is granted with respect to the TSA's invocation of the Glomar response. The motion is denied as to the BOP, except with respect to the video surveillance recordings that are no longer in the age ncy's possession. The motion is granted as to the FBI. To the extent that defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied on this record, the denial is without prejudice. SO ORDERED by Judge Allyne R. Ross, on 6/27/2013. C/mailed by Chambers. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
|
|
Filing
57
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants are hereby ordered to file a letter responding to plaintiff's 56 October 4, 2012 letter, within 7 business days of this Order. SO ORDERED by Judge Allyne R. Ross, on 10/16/2012. C/mailed by Chambers. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
