Doe v. Spinelli et. al.
| John Doe |
| Officer Badge Number 480 and Louis Spinelli |
| 1:2015cv05239 |
| September 10, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Lois Bloom |
| Margo K. Brodie |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
207
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court adopts the R&R in part. The Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's false arrest, First Amendment retaliation, and assault claims against Officer Williams, and denies Defendant's motion as to the First Amendment retaliation claims against Sergeant Alfieri and Officer Spinelli and the excessive force claims against Sergeant Alfieri. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 1/7/2021. (Piper, Francine)
|
|
Filing
204
Order adopting unopposed portions of the R&R. The Court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's state law assault claim against Officer Spinelli arising from the July 16, 2015 incident and Plaintiff's state malicious prosecution claims against all Defendants, and denies Plaintiff's summary judgment motion in its entirety.Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/31/2020. (Valentin, Winnethka)
|
|
Filing
64
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons discussed in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to amend. The Court (1) GRANTS: Defendants� 39; motion to dismiss Plaintiff's (a) federal excessive force claims against Court Officers Spinelli and Williams, (b) federal malicious abuse of the criminal process claims against the court officers, (c) federal malicious prosecution claims ag ainst the court officers, (d) federal fabrication of evidence claims against the court officers, (e) federal selective enforcement claims against the court officers, (f) failure to intervene claims against the court officers, (g) unconstitutional def amation claims against the court officers, and (h) federal and state conspiracy claims against the officers; and (2) DENIES: Defendants' motion to dismiss (a) Plaintiff's claims against Court Officers Spinelli and Williams for lack of perso nal jurisdiction, (b) state and federal false arrest claims against the court officers, (c) federal excessive force claim against Court Officer Alfieri, (d) state assault and battery claims against the court officers, (e) state malicious prosecution claims against the court officers, and (f) First Amendment retaliation claims against the court officers. The Court grants Plaintiff an extension time to effect proper service on Court Officers Spinelli and Williams. Plaintiff shall properly serve C ourt Officers Spinelli and Williams within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order and file proof of such service with the Clerk of Court. If Plaintiff fails to effect proper service on Court Officers Spinelli and Williams within t he time specified, Defendants may renew their motion to dismiss for failure of proper service as to Court Officers Spinelli and Williams. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims against Moody and dismisses her from the action. The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the docket accordingly. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 9/26/2017. (Hawkins, Salah)
|
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.
