Lewis v. Bureau of Alcohol Firearm and Explosives (ATF) et al
| Oswald A. Lewis |
| Christopher Bartos, Bureau of Alcohol Firearm and Explosives (ATF), Patrick Donahue, Sandy Rao, Howard Stern, United States Marshal Service (USMS) and Ayesha Winston |
| 1:2016cv01057 |
| February 29, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Kiyo A. Matsumoto |
| James Orenstein |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| 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
181
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum, plaintiff's remaining claims for excessive force and failure to intervene under Bivens are foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793 (2022). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close this case. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 11/14/2022. (de Carvalho, Simon)
|
|
Filing
104
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set out in the attached memorandum and order, defendants' motion to dismiss at 88 is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this memorandum and order to plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 6/23/2021. (Lewis, Benjamin)
|
|
Filing
67
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the court adopts in part the thorough and well-reasoned 62 report and recommendation of the Honorable James Orenstein, United States Magistrate Jud ge, and defendants' 57 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: (1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to plaintiff's excessive force claim against Deputy Marshal W estfield, based on plaintiff's contention that Deputy Marshal Westfield kicked plaintiff in the face after he had been subdued and handcuffed; (2) defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims that any of the Deputy Marshals present at his arrest, other than Deputy Marshal Westfield, used excessive force against plaintiff after he had been subdued and handcuffed; (3) defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to plaintiff' ;s claim that Deputy Marshals Bartosh, Banks, Ledogar, and Dineen failed to intervene in Deputy Marshal Westfield's purported use of excessive force against plaintiff; (4) defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaint iff's claim that Deputy Marshals Rao and Donohue failed to intervene in the use of excessive force against plaintiff, based on undisputed evidence establishing that even if excessive force was used, Deputy Marshals Rao and Donohue lacked a reali stic opportunity to intervene; and (5) defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in all other respects, including with respect to plaintiff's claims against the USMS and the ATF, against defendant ATF Special Agents Stern and Winston, and arising from purportedly excessive force upon entry into plaintiff's apartment, as well as plaintiff's claim that plaintiff's handcuffs were applied too tightly. The parties are directed to confer and, within twenty o ne (21) days, file a joint letter stating their intentions with respect to this action. Additionally, the Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff at his address of record. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 10/4/2018. (Flores, Diego)
|
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.
