KNICK v. AUSTIN et al
Plaintiff: DANIEL KNICK
Defendant: LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, FRANK KENDALL, III, ROBERT I. MILLER and RUDOLF WILHELM KUEHNE, JR.
Case Number: 1:2022cv01267
Filed: May 4, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Columbia
Presiding Judge: Beryl A Howell
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Religion
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 29, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 22 Memorandum in opposition to re #21 MOTION to Transfer Case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) filed by LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, FRANK KENDALL, III, RUDOLF WILHELM KUEHNE, JR, ROBERT I. MILLER. (Yang, Catherine)
June 16, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 21 MOTION to Transfer Case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) by DANIEL KNICK. (Poblete, Jason)
June 15, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING plaintiff's #8 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. See Memorandum Opinion and Order for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 15, 2022. (lcbah3)
June 15, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 19 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order filed by DANIEL KNICK. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exb A Tracking information from United States Postal Service (USPS), #2 Exhibit Exb B E-mail thread with the Clerk's Intake Office, #3 Exhibit Exb C USPS Certified Mail Receipt)(Poblete, Jason) (Main Document 19 replaced on 6/16/2022) (rj). (Attachment 1 replaced on 6/16/2022) (rj). (Attachment 2 replaced on 6/16/2022) (rj). (Attachment 3 replaced on 6/16/2022) (rj). Modified on 6/16/2022 to flatten pdf (rj).
June 15, 2022 Opinion or Order NOTICE OF ERROR re #19 Response to Order of the Court; emailed to jpoblete@pobletetamargo.com, cc'd 6 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Please note the following deficiency and file/refile document as ins
June 14, 2022 Opinion or Order MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING plaintiff to file forthwith, but no later than 5 PM on June 15, 2022, one of the following: (1) proof of service of the summons and complaint on defendants; (2) if service has not been completed, a notice describing plaintiffs plans to effect service and file proof of service in such time as to allow the Court to rule on plaintiffs pending motion for preliminary injunction prior to June 17, 2022, the date to which defendants agreed to postpone any disciplinary action; OR (3) in the alternative, an explanation of why plaintiff believes the Court has jurisdiction to rule on the motion for preliminary injunction in the desired timeframe despite the lack of effective service. "Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant," Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999), and is "a ritual that marks the court's assertion of jurisdiction over the lawsuit," Mann v. Castiel, 681 F.3d 368, 372 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accordingly, "federal courts lack the power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the procedural requirements of effective service are satisfied" pursuant to Rule 4. Id. (emphasis added); see also Sierra Club v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 905 F. Supp. 2d 356, 358-359 (D.D.C. 2012) ("[P]ersonal jurisdiction is an 'essential element of the jurisdiction of a district court without which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.'" (quoting Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999))). This "cardinal principle that the district court is powerless to proceed in the absence of personal jurisdiction applies with no less force when the court is presented with a motion for a preliminary injunction." Klatib v. Alliance Bankshares Corp., 846 F. Supp. 2d 18, 25 (D.D.C. 2012). Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 14, 2022. (lcbah3)
June 3, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 18 REPLY to opposition to motion re #8 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by DANIEL KNICK. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Exhibit)(Poblete, Jason) Modified docket relationship on 6/6/2022 (zeg).
May 27, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 17 Memorandum in opposition to re #8 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, FRANK KENDALL, III, RUDOLF WILHELM KUEHNE, JR, ROBERT I. MILLER. (Attachments: #1 Table of Defendants' Exhibits, #2 DX 1, #3 DX 2, #4 DX 3, #5 DX 4, #6 DX 5, #7 DX 6, #8 DX 7, #9 DX 8, #10 DX 9, #11 DX 10, #12 DX 11, #13 DX 12, #14 DX 13)(Yang, Catherine)
May 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 16 SUMMONS (6) Issued Electronically as to LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, FRANK KENDALL, III, RUDOLF WILHELM KUEHNE, JR, ROBERT I. MILLER, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: #1 Notice and Consent)(zeg)
May 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 15 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, Plaintiff is providing the Court the Plaintiff's statement of his position as to whether this case should be transferred pursuant to LCvR 40.5(c)(2) to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for potential reassignment to Judge Kollar-Kotelly due to the potential overlap in subject matter between the Plaintiff's case and to the cases identified in the Notice filed by the Defendants on May 16, 2022 [D.I. 13]; filed by DANIEL KNICK. (Poblete, Jason)
May 17, 2022 Opinion or Order Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction due by 5/27/2022; reply due by 6/3/2022. (ztg)
May 17, 2022 Opinion or Order Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's response to Order of the Court due by 2:00 PM on 5/19/2022. (ztg)
May 16, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 14 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Patrick Clendenen on behalf of LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, FRANK KENDALL, III, RUDOLF WILHELM KUEHNE, JR, ROBERT I. MILLER (Clendenen, Michael)
May 16, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 13 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by All Defendants. Case related to Case No. 22cv981; 22cv688; 21cv2815. (Carmichael, Andrew)
May 16, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew Evan Carmichael on behalf of All Defendants (Carmichael, Andrew)
May 16, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Catherine Yang on behalf of All Defendants (Yang, Catherine)
May 16, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 10 Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule filed pursuant to the Court's Order of May 16, 2022 by DANIEL KNICK. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Poblete, Jason)
May 16, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ERRATA Correction to the Case Caption in the Memorandum of Law to correctly reflect Plaintiffs Name, and added page references i and 1 to the Memorandum of Law Cover Sheet and Introduction Pages by DANIEL KNICK re #8 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by DANIEL KNICK. (Poblete, Jason)
May 16, 2022 Opinion or Order Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint response to Order of the Court due by 3:00 PM on 5/16/2022. (ztg)
May 16, 2022 Opinion or Order MINUTE ORDER (paperless) ISSUING, upon consideration of the parties' #10 Proposed Joint Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, the following SCHEDULING ORDER for briefing on the Motion: (1) by May 27, 2022, defendants shall file their response to plaintiff's motion; and (2) by June 3, 2022, plaintiff shall file any reply in support of his motion. The Court will advise following completion of the briefing whether it anticipates holding a hearing on plaintiff's motion. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 16, 2022. (lcbah3)
May 16, 2022 Opinion or Order MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING, upon consideration of the plaintiff's #8 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, which was submitted after business hours on Friday, May 13, 2022 and for which the parties have purportedly already agreed as of May 12, 2022 on a proposed briefing schedule omitted from plaintiff's filing, see id. at 2, the parties jointly to submit, by 3 PM today, May 16, 2022, a proposed briefing schedule, and (2) an explanation as to why this motion, styled as including a request for the extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining order should not proceed only as a motion for preliminary injunction. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 16, 2022. (lcbah3) Modified to correct typo on 5/16/2022 (ztg).
May 16, 2022 Opinion or Order MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING plaintiff, in light of the #13 Notice of Related Cases filed by defendants, to file, by May 19, 2022 at 2:00 PM, a statement of his position as to whether this case should be transferred to the Calendar and Case Management Committee, pursuant to LCvR 40.5(c)(2), for potential reassignment to Judge Kollar-Kotelly, due to the overlap in subject matter between this case and to the cases identified in the Notice. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 16, 2022. (lcbah3)
May 13, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by DANIEL KNICK. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support of the Plaintiff's Motion, #2 Exhibit Index of Exhibits, #3 Exhibit Exb A Plaintiff Request for Religious Accommodation (June 1, 2020), #4 Exhibit Exb B Plaintiff Request for Religious Accommodation (Aug. 31, 2021), #5 Exhibit Exb C USAF Cmdr. Interview transcript, #6 Exhibit Exb D Religious Accommodation Denial Memo, #7 Exhibit Exb E Plaintiffs Declaration (May 2, 2022), #8 Exhibit Exb F eMail to Plaintiff and Guidance Memo Denying Religious Exemption, #9 Exhibit Exb G Memo to Plaintiff from HQ AFFSA CC (Oct. 19, 2021))(Poblete, Jason). Added MOTION for Preliminary Injunction on 5/16/2022 (zeg).
May 11, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 STANDING ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 11, 2022. (lcbah3)
May 11, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by AIR FORCE OFFICER re #3 Order on Sealed Motion, (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Poblete, Jason)
May 11, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 COMPLAINT (filed pursuant to Order) against All Defendants (Fee Status:Filing Fee Waived) filed by DANIEL KNICK. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym, #3 Memorandum in Support for the Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym, #4 Summons, #5 Summons, #6 Summons, #7 Summons, #8 Summons, #9 Summons)(Poblete, Jason) Modified on 5/11/2022 to correct filer (zsb).
May 10, 2022 Opinion or Order Payment for #4 Complaint. ($402; Receipt number ADCDC-9228116). (Poblete, Jason)
May 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Case Assigned to Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell. (zsb)
May 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 SEE DOCKET ENTRY #5 FOR OPERATIVE COMPLAINT.....COMPLAINT against LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, FRANK KENDALL, III, RUDOLF WILHELM KUEHNE, JR, ROBERT I. MILLER ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number TBD) filed by AIR FORCE OFFICER. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons)(zeg) Modified on 5/11/2022 (zsb).
May 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER denying #1 Sealed Motion; granting #2 Sealed Motion. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on 5/4/2022. (zeg)
May 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 2 MOTION to Seal filed by AIR FORCE OFFICER. (zeg) Modified on 5/11/2022 to correct docket entry text (zsb).
May 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 1 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym filed by AIR FORCE OFFICER (Attachment: #1 Memorandum in Support)(zeg) Modified on 5/11/2022 to correct docket entry text (zsb).

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.

Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: KNICK v. AUSTIN et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: DANIEL KNICK
Represented By: Jason Ian Poblete
Represented By: Jeremy H. Gonzalez Ibrahim
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III
Represented By: Andrew Evan Carmichael
Represented By: Catherine Yang
Represented By: Michael Patrick Clendenen
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: FRANK KENDALL, III
Represented By: Andrew Evan Carmichael
Represented By: Catherine Yang
Represented By: Michael Patrick Clendenen
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: ROBERT I. MILLER
Represented By: Andrew Evan Carmichael
Represented By: Catherine Yang
Represented By: Michael Patrick Clendenen
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: RUDOLF WILHELM KUEHNE, JR.
Represented By: Andrew Evan Carmichael
Represented By: Catherine Yang
Represented By: Michael Patrick Clendenen
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?