Luo v. Baldwin Union Free School District et al
| Jenn-Ching Luo |
| Baldwin Union Free School District, Robert Briglio, Michelle Gallo and Susan M. Gibson |
| Robert Briglio |
| Jenn-Ching Luo |
| 2:2012cv03073 |
| June 20, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Joanna Seybert |
| A. Kathleen Tomlinson |
| Civil Rights: Education |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
91
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, Judge Tomlinsons May 20, 2013 Order is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiffs motion to strike is DENIED. the Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Ord er would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Plaintiff. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 8/12/2014. C/M to pro se Plaintiff via FCM. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
85
MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 37 is GRANTED and Briglio's counterclaim against Plaintiff is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's renewed Motion to Dismiss Briglio's Counterclaim 76 is DENIED AS MO OT and Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions 73 is DENIED. On Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 63 , the Court RESERVES JUDGMENT. The District and Gallo are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within 30 days of the date of this Order, why Plaintiff's Moti on to Strike should not be granted. If they do no do so, the District and Gallo are in danger of being in default. The Court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of an appeal. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 2/12/2014. (C/M Plaintiff) (Nohs, Bonnie)
|
|
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 18 Motion to Dismiss Case as Frivolous; denying 19 Motion to Dismiss. For the foregoing reasons, Gibson and Briglio's motions to dismiss are GRANTED. The District and Gallo's partial motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Briglio's coun terclaim is DENIED. Plaintiff's remaining claims, therefore, are his claim for IDEA administrative review, and his Section 1983 claims against Gallo and the District for (a) failing to consider information regarding B.L.'s placement in a C amphill-like setting and thus not providing Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to recommend an educational placement, and (b) conducting administrative proceedings in which erroneous arguments were made and adopted. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Gibson and Briglio as Defendants in this action; Robert Briglio and Susan M. Gibson terminated. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 3/21/2013. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
|
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.
