Kovac et al v. Wray et al
| Adis Kovac, Bashar Aljame, Abraham Sbyti, Suhaib Allababidi and Fadumo Warsame |
| Christopher Wray, Charles H Kable, Deborah Moore, Nicholas Rasmussen, David P. Pekoske and Kevin K McAleenan |
| 3:2018cv00110 |
| January 17, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Dallas Office |
| Dallas |
| Sam A Lindsay |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| 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
102
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 90 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Charles H Kable, Nicholas Rasmussen, Christopher Wray, Deborah Moore, David P Pekoske, Kevin K McAleenan and denying 96 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Bashar Aljame, Fadumo Warsame, Adis Kovac, Abraham Sbyti, Suhaib Allababidi. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 3/9/2023) (ykp)
|
|
Filing
81
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS the Government's 67 motion for leave to file portions of the administrative record under seal and for ex parte, in camera review only and GRANTS IN PART the plaintiffs' 73 motion for lim ited Administrative Procedure Act discovery; it ORDERS the Government to supplement the Administrative Record within 45 days of this Order. Further, the Court ORDERS the parties to submit motions for summary judgment within 60 days of the date the Government supplements the Administrative Record. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 3/10/2022) (mjr)
|
|
Filing
57
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the government's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. No. 47 ]. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the plaintiffs' procedural and substantive due process claim s relating to an asserted liberty interest in nonattainder (Counts I and II). The plaintiffs retain their Administrative Procedure Act claims (Count III). The parties previously conferred in April 2020 and filed proposed scheduling orders on 6/12/202 0. Given that the Court has now ruled on the government's Rule 12(c) motion, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer and submit an updated proposed scheduling order to Court within 14 days of the date of this order. The Court administratively closes this case and will reopen it once the Court issues an amended scheduling order. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 11/6/2020) (ctf)
|
|
Filing
43
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Before the Court are defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Warsame for Lack of Standing [Doc. No. 25 ] and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Adis Kovac's Claims for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction [Doc. No . 30 ]. The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to dismiss Warsame's claims. The Court GRANTS LEAVE to the defendants to file, within 28 days of the date of this Order, a renewed motion to dismiss Warsame's claims with the appropr iate evidence to support its assertions of mootness. The Court also GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the motion to dismiss Kovacs claims. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Kovac's procedural due process claim (Count I) and substantive due process claim (Count II) only to the extent that they are predicated on his liberty interest in a right to travel. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 3/27/2020) (ndt)
|
|
Filing
12
Memorandum Opinion and Order: 8 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 3/5/2019) (svc)
|
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 Texas 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.
