Calvert v. State of NY, et al

Calvert v. State of NY, et al

Case Number:	6:2002cv06194
Filed:	April 10, 2002
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of New York
Office:	Rochester Office
Presiding Judge:	Jonathan W. Feldman
Presiding Judge:	Charles J. Siragusa
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
June 26, 2012	Filing 87 DECISION AND ORDER denying 82 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Defendants motion [#82] to dismiss is denied, and the Courts prior Motion Scheduling Order [#83] is vacated. Nevertheless, in light of the fact that Plaintiff is now rel eased from prison, having served his maximum sentence, the Court sua sponte questions whether there is a good faith legal basis for him to maintain claims for injunctive relief. See, e.g., Pugh v. Goord, 571 F.Supp.2d 477, 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Where a prisoner has been released from prison, his claims for injunctive relief based on the conditions of his incarceration must be dismissed as moot.) (citations omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiffs counsel is directed to submit a letter, not exceeding fi ve pages, within 30 days of entry of this Decision and Order, explaining how there is a good faith basis for maintaining such claims. In the alternative, Plaintiff shall voluntarily discontinue such claims by that date. By separate order the Court will schedule this matter for trial. The appearance for oral argument that had been scheduled for July 12, 2012 is cancelled.Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 6/26/12. (KAP)
September 24, 2009	Filing 78 DECISION AND ORDER denying 50 Motion to Amend or Correct; granting in part and denying in part 52 Motion for Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is granted as follows: The individual Defendants are granted summary judgment on the ADA claims; Berba ry is granted summary judgment on all Section 1983 claims; Goord and Wright are granted partial-summary judgment on the Section 1983 claims seeking money damages; and all Defendants are granted summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claims. Otherw ise, summary judgment is denied. Further, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing, with evidentiary proof in admissible form, on or before October 23, 2009, why the security classification claim and the claims against Oh, Hanley, Kickbush, Kinsey and Wilkins, should not be dismissed.Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 9/23/09. (KAP)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 26, 2012

Filing 87 DECISION AND ORDER denying 82 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Defendants motion [#82] to dismiss is denied, and the Courts prior Motion Scheduling Order [#83] is vacated. Nevertheless, in light of the fact that Plaintiff is now rel eased from prison, having served his maximum sentence, the Court sua sponte questions whether there is a good faith legal basis for him to maintain claims for injunctive relief. See, e.g., Pugh v. Goord, 571 F.Supp.2d 477, 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Where a prisoner has been released from prison, his claims for injunctive relief based on the conditions of his incarceration must be dismissed as moot.) (citations omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiffs counsel is directed to submit a letter, not exceeding fi ve pages, within 30 days of entry of this Decision and Order, explaining how there is a good faith basis for maintaining such claims. In the alternative, Plaintiff shall voluntarily discontinue such claims by that date. By separate order the Court will schedule this matter for trial. The appearance for oral argument that had been scheduled for July 12, 2012 is cancelled.Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 6/26/12. (KAP)

September 24, 2009

Filing 78 DECISION AND ORDER denying 50 Motion to Amend or Correct; granting in part and denying in part 52 Motion for Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is granted as follows: The individual Defendants are granted summary judgment on the ADA claims; Berba ry is granted summary judgment on all Section 1983 claims; Goord and Wright are granted partial-summary judgment on the Section 1983 claims seeking money damages; and all Defendants are granted summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claims. Otherw ise, summary judgment is denied. Further, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing, with evidentiary proof in admissible form, on or before October 23, 2009, why the security classification claim and the claims against Oh, Hanley, Kickbush, Kinsey and Wilkins, should not be dismissed.Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 9/23/09. (KAP)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Calvert v. State of NY, et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?