Pinckney v. United States of America, The
Plaintiff: Jennifer Pinckney
Defendant: United States of America, The
Case Number: 2:2016cv02350
Filed: June 30, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Charleston Office
County: Colleton
Presiding Judge: Richard M Gergel
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 18, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER AND OPINION This order relates to all consolidated cases Despite clear evidence of system failures in the federal background check system, it is manifest that under the well-established standards of the FTCA and t he specific immunity provisions contained in Brady Act provide the victims of this tragedy no remedy at law. In exceptional circumstances, Congress may authorize a private bill to provide for compensation to victims where there is no remedy at law. < i>See, e.g., Act for the relief of sixteen employees of the Charleston Naval Shipyard, Private L. No. 98-12, 98 Stat. 3419 (1984) (private bill sponsored by Sen. Strom Thurmond). This is ultimately a determination of Congress. This Court has set forth detailed factual findings that may be of some assistance to Plaintiffs if they wish to petition their Government for a private relief bill. The Government's motion to dismiss is granted. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. (granting (43) Motion to Dismiss in case 2:16-cv-02356-RMG) Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 6/18/2018. Associated Cases: 2:16-cv-02356-RMG et al.(sshe, )
March 23, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER AND OPINION The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for jurisdictional discovery (Dkt. No. (16) in case 2:16-cv-02356-RMG (Lead case)) and DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. (12) in case 2:16-cv-02356- RMG (Lead case)). Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the discretionary-function exception, the argument that Plaintiffs' claims are not actionable under South Carolina law under theories of negligent creation of risk and negligence per se, and is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE as to the misrepresentation exception. The Court ORDERS jurisdictional discovery to be completed by June 1, 2017. Defendant may renew its motion to dismiss regarding the discretionary-f unction exception, negligent creation of risk, and negligence per se after the close of jurisdictional discovery. Pursuant to the Court's consolidation order, the Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions in related cases. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/23/2017. Associated Cases: 2:16-cv-02356-RMG et al, all pending motions termed.(sshe, )
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 South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pinckney v. United States of America, The
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jennifer Pinckney
Represented By: Steven Randall Hood
Represented By: Gedney M Howe, III
Represented By: Gerald Malloy
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: United States of America, The
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?