Burks v. Stickney et al
| Mattieu Burks |
| Chad Stickney, Nolan, Smith, Pepper, J. Cross, John Doe "E" Block, Steven Racette, Michael Kirkpatrick, John Doe and John Doe 1-25 |
| 9:2016cv00759 |
| June 27, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Prisoner Office |
| Clinton |
| David E. Peebles |
| Frederick J. Scullin |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
128
JUDGMENT in favor of Ofc Nolan, Ofc Smith, Ofc Chad Stickney, Super. David J Chamberlain, Ofc Edward L. Pepper, Sgt. John Mark Cross, Super. Michael Kirkpatrick, Super. Steven Racette against Mattieu Burks. (bjw, )
|
|
Filing
97
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that; (1) Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 81 ) is GRANTED, limited to the request for the imposition of sanctions against defendants Racette and Kirkpatrick based upon the difficulty in scheduling their depositions. (2) Plaintiff is hereby awarded the sum of $628.65 each against defendants Racette and Kirkpatrick, as sanctions, to be paid within thirty days of the date of this order. (3) Except to the extent of the foregoing, plaintiff' s motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 81 ) is DENIED. (4) The clerk is respectfully directed to forward to the attorneys in this action the New York State Bar Association publication entitled "Civility in Litigation: A Voluntary Commitment." In the future, the attorneys for the parties are expected to abide by the rules set forth in that pamphlet, and to treat each other with courtesy, dignity, and professionalism. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 1/29/18. (NYSBA publication emailed to all attorneys of record) (alh, )
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER: The court agrees with the assertion of the DOCCS and the defendants that having refused to disclose his knowledge concerning investigations at the facility, plaintiff should not now be provided with information concerning those investigatio ns. Accordingly, having disclosed to plaintiff's counsel information concerning the number of investigations open during the relevant time period and concerning the subject matters identified, and in light of plaintiff's refusal to testify as to his knowledge concerning those investigations, I deem the DOCCS and the defendants to be in full compliance with my November 22, 2017 order (Dkt. No. 90 ), and will respectfully request that the Clerk of the Court return the materials submitt ed for in camera review to Joshua Pepper, Esq., Associate Counsel, NYS DOCCS. Attorney Pepper is directed to maintain the documents submitted for in camera inspection until the final disposition of this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 1/9/18. (In camera submissions returned as directed)(alh, )
|
|
Filing
90
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED as follows: (1) Defendants' motion for relief from the court's June order (Dkt. No. 74 ) is GRANTED. (2) Paragraph one of the court's June order (Dkt. No. 57) is hereby VACATED and superseded by this order. (3) On or before December 15, 2017, defendants shall produce to plaintiff a list of all known investigations conducted of DOCCS employees at the Clinton Correctional Facility that were in progress at any time between January 1, 2015 and A ugust 31, 2015, related to the issues of either smuggling and/or secreting of contraband or prisoner abuse at the facility. (4) In generating the information directed in paragraph (3), defendants and the DOCCS shall accomplish the following steps : (a) Identify all OSI investigations covering the subject matters set forth above and opened between January 1, 2015 and August 31, 2015. (b) Identify all OSI investigations covering the subject matters set forth above and closed between Januar y 1, 2015 and the date of the disclosure to plaintiff. (c) Of the investigations closed during that timeframe, identify those that were opened between January 1, 2015 and August 31, 2015. (5) After completing the foregoing steps, but also by or b efore December 15, 2017, defendants and the DOCCS shall review the underlying files associated with the pertinent investigations and provide to plaintiff the dates on which the investigations began and ended, the subject of the investigations, a nd the identity of any DOCCS employees whose actions were investigated. (6) Defendants and the DOCCS are not required to produce the information specified in paragraph (5) relating to any OSI investigation that remains open and pending. (7) As a n alternative to the review of the pertinent investigations proposed in paragraph (5), defendants and the DOCCS may forward to the court for in camera review the summary sheets generated by the OSI electronic case filing system regarding the invest igations. After reviewing the summary sheets provided for in camera inspection, the court will determine whether they provide sufficient information to satisfy plaintiff's discovery needs or whether further analysis of the underlying physic al case files is required for all or some of the matters disclosed. (8) The information provided to plaintiff under the terms of this order is confidential and for attorney's eyes only. Plaintiff's counsel may not disclose this informat ion to anyone outside of his law firm without prior consent of defendants' counsel or court approval. (9) No costs or attorney's fees are awarded to any party in connection with this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 11/22/17. (alh, )
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff's # 55 and # 56 motion for a Temporary Restraining Order/Order to Show Cause is GRANTED effective immediately insofar as Defendants' counsel is prohibited from proceeding with any a rrangements she, any member of the New York State Attorney General's Office or the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision has made or may make in the future to have Plaintiff view the photographs of the officers who worked at C-bloc k during the relevant shift at issue in this case, with or without video and stenographic recording of said viewing, without Plaintiff's counsel being present for said viewing. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 6/14/2017. (nmk)
|
|
Filing
39
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for relief from the restrictions imposed by the protective order in this case with regard to the portions of the OSI file now contested (Dkt. Nos. 32 , 33 ) is GRANTED, except that plaintif f is not permitted to possess a personal copy of the OSI, and the documents at issue must be redacted as indicated herein; and it is further ORDERED that the clerk of court serve a copy of this order, as well as a copy of the challenged documents containing the court's redactions, on the parties in accordance with the local rules of practice for this court. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 4/19/17. (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.
