Tarhuni v. Holder et al
| Jamal Tarhuni |
| Hillary Clinton, FBI Terrorism Screening Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Timothy Healy, Eric Holder, Robert S. Mueller, Horace Thomas, United States Department of State and Brian Zinn |
| 3:2013cv00001 |
| January 2, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| Anna J. Brown |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| 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
210
OPINION AND ORDER: Upon consideration of the Consent Motion to Modify the Protective Order, and good cause having been shown, it is hereby ordered that Section II, Paragraph 2 of the Stipulated Protective Order [ECF 183] be, and the same hereby is, amended to grant access to Plaintiff to portions of the LE Information to be determined by the Defendants and subject to all of the conditions of the Stipulated Protective Order. This Order does not otherwise modify the Stipulated Protective Order in any way. Signed on 3/2/2020 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (kms)
|
|
Filing
157
Opinion and Order. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion (# 149 ) to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's Claim Two insofar as it is premised on Plaintiff's alleged liberty interest in freedom from false government stigmatization. The Court, however, declines to dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint in any other respect.The Court directs Defendants to file an answer to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Compla int no later than August 24, 2018. The Court also directs the parties to confer and to file no later than August 24, 2018, a jointly proposed case-management schedule setting out their joint or opposed proposals fordeadlines (1) to complete discovery, (2) to file dispositive motions, and (3) to file a jointly proposed pretrial order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 7/27/18 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (jy)
|
|
Filing
106
Opinion and Order: The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Case for Lack of Jurisdiction 92 and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice. Signed on 09/08/2015 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 24 page Opinion and Order for full text. (bb)
|
|
Filing
49
Opinion and Order: For these reasons and construing all of Defendants' Motions as against Plaintiff's Proposed Second Amended Complaint, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Official Capacity Defendants Motion 20 to D ismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Court GRANTS the Individual Capacity Defendants Motion 23 to Dismiss and DISMISSES without prejudice Claim One and Count One of Claim Two. The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Coun t Two of Claim Two. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend all claims dismissed without prejudice on the condition that Plaintiff can in good faith plead facts sufficient to satisfy the deficiencies discussed and state a plausible claim on the merits. The Court FURTHER ORDERS Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint consistent with this Order no later than April 25, 2014. Upon the filing of the Third Amended Complaint, the Court encourages the remaining Defendants to file their Answer s so this matter may progress to dispositive-motion practice. In any event, Defendants shall file their responsive pleading(s) to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint no later than May 27, 2014. Signed on 03/26/2014 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 54 page Opinion and Order for full text. (bb)
|
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 Oregon 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.
