Ferrer v. Racette et al
| Rodney Ferrer |
| Steven Racette, Charles Kelly, Craig Goodman, Andrew Frazier, Livermore, Brian Schlogl, Gregory Beecher, Eric Morin, Jeremy Burch, Daniel McClenning, N. Waite and Joshua Jenkins |
| 9:2014cv01370 |
| November 12, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Prisoner Office |
| Seneca |
| Glenn T. Suddaby |
| Randolph F. Treece |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
137
DECISION AND ORDER denying # 126 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defs. Beecher, Burch & McClenning; granting in part and denying in part # 127 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defs. Goodman, Kelly, Waite and Jenkins as set forth below; an d denying # 128 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defs. Beecher, Burch and McClenning. Surviving these motions for summary judgment are the following claims: (a) Plfs First Cause of Action for excessive use of force as against Defs. Fra zier, Beecher, Burch, Morin, and McClenning; (b) Plf's First Cause of Action for failure to intervene during the excessive use of force as against Def. Livermore; (c) Plfs Second Cause of Action for retaliation as against Defs. Frazier, Beecher, Burch, Morin, McClenning, and Livermore; and (d) Defs. Beecher, Burch, and McClennings counter-claims for assault and battery. Counsel are direct to appear on January 16, 2018 at 1:30 pm in Syracuse, NY, in chambers for a pretrial conference, at wh ich time counsel are directed to appear with settlement authority, and in the event that the case does not settle, trial will be scheduled at that time to begin on February 26, 2018 with pretrial submissions being due on February 5, 2018. Plaintiff is further directed to forward a written settlement demand to Defendants no later than January 2, 2018, and the parties are directed to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations before the conference. In the event that counsel feel settlement is unlikely, counsel may file a letter request at least one week before the scheduled conference advising that settlement is not feasible, and the Court will cancel the conference and issue a trial order scheduling trial for February 26, 2018. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 12/15/17. (lmw)
|
|
Filing
104
ORDER: An in camera review of Plaintiff's mental health records reflected three entries that relate to the sole issue identified by the Court as relevant, namely Plaintiff's complaints of staff treatment during the general time period of S eptember of 2011. The Court has redacted the entries (dated August 31, 2011, September 14, 2011, and October 25, 2011) so that only the Plaintiff's specific report is disclosed. Plaintiff's Counsel is directed to retrieve the complete mental health records as well as the redacted copies of the relevant entries, and shall immediately provide the redacted copies to the Counsel for the remaining Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 11/4/16. (alh, )
|
|
Filing
92
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the Defendants' request for production of Plaintiff's mental health records is hereby denied in part and granted in part in that the Court will conduct an in camera review of the mental health records, sp anning from August 15, 2011 through November 15, 2011, for the limited purpose of determining whether the records relate to Plaintiff's complaint/report of alleged abuse by staff at the Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 9/19/16. (alh, )
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER: As part of the Court's discovery conference held on June 8, 2016, counsel for the Defendants were instructed to provide to chambers the personnel files for their clients at the earliest possible date. Dkt. No. 68. On July 24, 2016, the personnel file for Defendant Daniel McClenning was reviewed by the Court. The in camera review of Defendant McClenning's personnel file reflected one set of documents that may possibly be used for impeachment purposes, or as part of the supervi sory claim. When retrieving the personnel file, Defendant's Counsel Jeffrey Mans shall make a copy of the thirteen total pages from the personnel file which have been tagged and paper clipped together by the Court. Counsel shall redact any infor mation regarding the Defendant's date of birth, home address, and social security number. The redacted copies shall be provided to the Plaintiff's counsel, with copies to the counsel for the remaining Defendants. Because of the nature and c ircumstances of the case, and the specific needs of the correctional facility, the Plaintiff's counsel is directed not to provide copies of the disclosed portions of the personnel file to the Plaintiff. However, counsel is not barred from discus sing the content of the documents with her client. The Court directs that the Defendant's Counsel immediately retrieve from the Court's courtroom deputy, Maria Blunt, the McClenning personnel file. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 7/24/16. (alh, )
|
|
Filing
84
ORDER: As part of the Courts discovery conference held on June 8, 2016, counsel for the Defendants were instructed to provide to chambers the personnel files for their clients at the earliest possible date. Dkt. No. 68. On July 18, 2016, the pers onnel file for Defendant Dennis Livermore was reviewed by the Court. The in camera review of Defendant Livermores personnel file reflected one set of documents that may possibly be used for impeachment purposes, or as part of the supervisory clai m. When retrieving the personnel file, Defendants Counsel Ryan Donovan shall make a copy of the fifteen pages from the personnel file which have been tagged and paper clipped together by the Court. Counsel shall redact any information regarding the Defendants date of birth, home address, and social security number. The redacted copies shall be provided to the Plaintiff's counsel, with copies to the counsel for the remaining Defendants. Because of the nature and circumstances of the case , and the specific needs of the correctional facility, the Plaintiff's counsel is directed not to provide copies of the disclosed portions of the personnel file to the Plaintiff. However, counsel is not barred from discussing the content of the documents with her client. The Court directs that the Defendant's Counsel immediately retrieve from the Court's courtroom deputy, Maria Blunt, the Livermore personnel file. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 7/18/16. (alh, )
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER: As part of the Court's discovery conference held on June 8, 2016 counsel for the Defendants were instructed to provide to chambers the personnel files for their clients at the earliest possible date. Dkt. No. 68. On July 12, 2016 person nel files for Craig Goodman; Joshua Jenkins; Charles Kelly; Steven Racette and Nathan Waite were provided to the Court by attorney Cathy Sheehan. The in camera review of the personnel files of these five Defendants did not reveal any relevant informa tion or impeachment material that warrants disclosure. The Court directs that the Counsel for Goodman, Jenkins, Kelly, Racette and Waite, immediately retrieve from the Court's courtroom deputy, Maria Blunt, the five personnel files. The Court again directs the remaining defense counsel to immediately produce their client's personnel files for review. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 7/12/16. (alh, )
|
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 Northern 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.
