Johnson v. Rankin

Defendant: Stephen D. Rankin
Plaintiff: Jerrell R. Johnson
 
Case Number: 2:2011cv00415
Filed: July 22, 2011
 
Court: Virginia Eastern District Court
Office: Norfolk Office
County: Virginia Beach City
Referring Judge: Douglas E. Miller
Presiding Judge: Rebecca Beach Smith
 
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download.
Date Filed#Document Text
March 2, 2012 110 Featured Case MEMORANDUM ORDER - The Court ORDERS that Exhibit 6 to the Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs First Motion in Limine shall bemarked confidential, and placed "under seal" with this Court. The Court recognizes that at som e point, the VSP will likely conclude its investigation. However, once the litigation in the instant civil case has been finalized,including any potential appeals, the Clerk's office shall return the documents to the Defendant rather than unseal ing the items. Once returned to the Defendant, pursuant to paragraph four (4) of this Court's November 7,2011, protective order, the Defendant is under a duty to destroy the documents or return them to VSP. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller and filed on 3/2/12. (jcow, )
November 7, 2011 37 Featured Case MEMORANDUM ORDER as to motion to quash; Tab A-l, Summary of Investigation.The Document behind Tab 1 constitutes the VSP's investigative summary, directed to Portsmouth Commonwealth's Attorney Earl C. Mobley. It is an evaluative summary cont aining the impressions of its authors concerning the evidence described. In addition, most of the factual material describedin the document is available in other, separately categorized materials. Accordingly, the VSP's motion to quash is grante d as to A-l, which will not be produced. Tab B-l, Portsmouth Police Department Reports A number of documents behind B-l concern investigative materials prepared by the Portsmouth Police Department. Because these materials were obtained from Portsmo uth Police Department, which has raised other objections to their production, the Courtdeclines to order their production from the VSP file pending argument on Portsmouth's separate motion. Tabs C-l through C-4, Crime Scene ExaminationThe four documents contained under the category "Crime Scene Examination", reflect objective analysis of the physical condition of the scene where the incident occurred. All of the information in document C-l through C-4should be produced, subject to the Protective Order. Tabs D-l through D-4, Lab Reports All of the documents in section D involve postmortem testing and examination of the decedent, Denyakin, no factor warrants withholding themand they will be produced subject to the Protective Order. Tabs E-l through E-6, Rankin Materials Materials in section E relate to the defendant, OfficerStephen Rankin, documents E-1 and E-5 will be produced subject to the protective order. Documents E-2 and E-6 will be produced subject to the prot ective order. Documents E-3 and E-4 may be withheld and VSP's motion to quash is granted in part with respect to E-3 and E-4. Tabs F-l through F-3, Denyakin Materials The materials in section F also relate to the decedent,Kirill Denyakin. F-l is a report concerning the investigator's review of video footage from security cameras near the scene. F-2 contains a search warrant and return for records related to the emergency medical treatment by those who responded to the incident. The third document, F-3, is a summary of informationobtained from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement concerning Denyakin's immigration status. These documents present purely factual data. Although the report of video evidence in F-2 contains the i nvestigator's observations of a person believed to be Denyakin, they amount to only a description of his physical condition without subjective characterization. In addition, thevideo evidence itself is available in the event any party disagrees with the investigator's characterization. The report contains useful time-stamped data concerning Denyakin's suspected appearance in the footage and it, along with the other two factual documents in section F, will be produced subject tothe Protective Order. Tabs G-l through G-23, Witness Interviews. Documents in section G include summaries of witness interviews conducted by VSP's Chief Investigator between May 5 and May 31, 2011. The witness statements with the witnesses' dates of birth and phone numbers redacted shall be produced subject to the Protective Order. Tabs H-l through H-20, Police Statements. H-l through H-20 will be produced, subject to the Protective Order. Tabs 1-1 through 1-6, Chain of Custody and R equest for Examinations, they will also beproduced subject to the terms of the Protective Order. Tabs J-l through J-16, Audio/Video and Other Evidence. The evidence included in the J-l through J-9 be produced subject to the terms of the Protective Order. The VSP's motion to quash is granted with regard to J-10. The VSP's motion to quash isgranted with respect to J-ll and J-12. J-13, J-14, J-15, J-16 and J-17 must be produced subject to the Protective Order. Tabs K-l through K-5, Additional Material, the undersigned declines to order the production of any of the documents addressed in K-l through K-12. Subject to the terms of the Protective Order entered this day, the undersigned directs the VSP to produce the foregoing mate rials to Plaintiff's counsel within ten (10) days of thisOrder. Costs for copying and duplication shall be paid by Plaintiff's counsel. The materials submitted for in camera review may be retrieved from chambers by the VSP for use in making necessary copies. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller and filed on 11/7/11. (jcow, )
February 6, 2012 66 Featured Case MEMORANDUM OPINION - granting document numbers 46 and 50 , motions to seal; the Court ORDERS that Exhibits 4 and 9 to the Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Exhibit 1 to theDefendant&# 039;s reply be marked confidential and remain "under seal" with this Court. In addition, the sealed version of Defendant's reply may remain sealed as the modestly redacted public version (ECF No. 53) is adequate to inform the public of the issues presented. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller and filed on 2/6/12. (jcow, )
February 16, 2012 83 Featured Case OPINION that the court DENIES the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on all grounds. Signed by District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 2/16/12. (jcow, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Search for this case: Johnson v. Rankin
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Stephen D. Rankin
Represented By: Dawn Lee Serafine
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jerrell R. Johnson
Represented By: Christopher Lon Daughtry
Represented By: Carlton F. Bennett
Represented By: Craig Stewart Gill, Jr.
Represented By: John Dillard Hooker, Jr.
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]