Thomas v. Beals et al
| Jeffrey Thomas, Jr., Michelle C. Thomas and Phillip E. Thompson |
| Susan Beals, Robert Brink and Virginia Department of Elections |
| 3:2022cv00427 |
| June 8, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| David J Novak |
| Mandamus & Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 30
ORDER (Granting Motion to Dismiss) This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24), moving to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)( l) and 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( l), the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' Motion (ECF No. #24 ) for lack of jurisdiction. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This case is now CLOSED. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 8/1/2022. A copy of this Order and Memorandum Opinion sent electronically to all counsel of record and mailed to pro se Plaintiffs.(asho, )
|
|
Filing 29
MEMORANDUM OPINION (See Memorandum Opinion for Details). Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 8/1/2022. (asho, )
|
|
Filing 28
NOTICE by Susan Beals, Robert Brink, Virginia Department of Elections re #24 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim with Roseboro,. MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction with Roseboro,. Supplemental Authority (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Opinion in Goldman v. Brink)(Ferguson, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 27
REPLY to Response to Motion re #24 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim with Roseboro,. MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction with Roseboro,. filed by Susan Beals, Robert Brink, Virginia Department of Elections. (Ferguson, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 26
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss #24 filed by Jeffrey Thomas, Jr, Michelle C. Thomas, Phillip E. Thompson. (adun, )
|
|
Filing 25
Memorandum in Support re #24 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim with Roseboro,. MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction with Roseboro,. filed by Susan Beals, Robert Brink, Virginia Department of Elections. (Ferguson, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 24
MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim with Roseboro,., MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction with Roseboro,. by Susan Beals, Robert Brink, Virginia Department of Elections. (Ferguson, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 23
ORDER (Denying Motion for Sanctions) This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. #22 ), moving the Court for sanctions against Defendants for refusing to stipulate to certain facts. Plaintiffs' Motion fails to comply with the requirements for a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure l l(c)(2) and Local Civil Rule 37(E). Additionally, the Court has reviewed the Motion and finds that it lacks merit, as Defendants have not engaged in sanctionable conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion (ECF No. #22 ) is hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 6/28/2022. A copy of this Order sent electronically to all counsel of record and mailed to pro se Plaintiffs at their addresses of record. (asho, )
|
|
Filing 22
MOTION for Sanctions by Jeffrey Thomas, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Unmarked Exhibits) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 21
STIPULATION of Facts Relevant to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Joint) by Susan Beals, Robert Brink, Virginia Department of Elections. (Ferguson, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 20
ORDER (Granting Motion for Enlargement of Page Limits) - This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Motion for Enlargement of Page Limit for Opening Brief (ECF No. 17), moving the Court to enlarge the page limit for their forthcoming Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. (ECF No. 19.) Because of the unique and novel legal theories and distinct factual allegations raised by three different Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint, and because the Court will require the parties to address additional arguments in their briefs, Defendants Motion (ECF No. 17) is hereby GRANTED. Defendants opening brief may not exceed forty (40) pages. The Court will also grant Plaintiffs a commensurate enlargement, such that their opposition brief may not exceed forty (40) pages. There will be no expansion of the page limits for the Reply brief. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 6/23/2022. (Copies distributed as directed) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 19
Opposition re: ECF No. #17 Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Page Limit for Opening Brief filed by Jeffrey Thomas, Jr. (jpow, )
|
|
Filing 18
Memorandum in Support re #17 MOTION Motion for Enlargement of Page Limit for Opening Brief filed by Susan Beals, Robert Brink, Virginia Department of Elections. (Popps, Steven)
|
|
Filing 17
MOTION Motion for Enlargement of Page Limit for Opening Brief by Susan Beals, Robert Brink, Virginia Department of Elections. (Popps, Steven)
|
|
Filing 16
ORDER (Extending Briefing Deadlines) This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) and Defendants' Motion for Immediate Status Conference and For Relief From June 13 Order (ECF No. 15). Despite the Court holding a hearing and granting Plaintiffs request for expedited briefing on his previous Complaint, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint that will further delay the resolution of this matter. Because the Amended Complaint adds new parties and raises significant additional factual and legal allegations, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART Defendants' Motion (ECF No. #15 ) and hereby MODIFIES the Briefing Schedule (ECF No. #10 ) as follows: Plaintiffs and Defendants shall meet and confer and file a joint stipulation of the facts relevant to Defendants' Motion no later than June 24, 2022. Defendants shall file their Motion to Dismiss, laying out all of their jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional grounds for dismissal, on or before July 1, 2022. Plaintiffs shall respond to the Motion within eight (8) days after Defendants file their Motion. In their response, all Plaintiffs must address their significant delay in filing the original Complaint and, subsequently, the Amended Complaint. Defendants shall file their Reply within five (5) days after Plaintiffs file their Response. Should any party believe that a further extension of the briefing schedule is necessary, they must file a motion by Monday, June 20, 2022. The party must demonstrate compelling reasons to warrant further extension. Additionally, the Court hereby DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion (ECF No. #15 ) to the extent that it requests another status conference. The Court will only conduct another status conference at this time if compelling circumstances are demonstrated. The Court believes that this revised schedule allows the case to proceed expeditiously while affording the parties sufficient time to fully address the issues in their briefs. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 6/16/2022. A copy of this Order sent electronically to all counsel of record and any party not represented by counsel and a copy sent to pro se Plaintiffs at their addresses of record as directed. (asho, )
|
|
Filing 15
MOTION Motion for Immediate Status Conference and for Relief from June 13, 2022 Order Due to Amended Complaint by Susan Beals, Robert Brink. (Popps, Steven)
|
|
Filing 14
AMENDED COMPLAINT against Susan Beals, Robert Brink, Virginia Department of Elections, filed by Jeffrey Thomas, Jr, Michelle C. Thomas, Phillip E. Thompson.(asho, )
|
|
Filing 13
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on June 13, 2022, before Judge David J. Novak, Court Reporter Melissa Custis, Telephone number 804-916-2278. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 7/18/2022. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2022. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/14/2022.(Custis, Melissa)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Pro Se E-Noticing. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 6/14/2022. A copy of this Order sent to Plaintiff. (asho, )
|
|
Filing 11
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge David J. Novak:Status Conference held on 6/13/2022. Matter came on for status hearing. Counsel addressed relief sought and expedited briefing schedule - ORDER TO ENTER. Deft to receive filing via email. (Court Reporter Melissa Custis, OCR.)(cgar)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER (Setting Briefing Schedule) This matter comes before the Court for scheduling management, following the status hearing in this case on June 13, 2022. The Court hereby ORDERS the following: As stated during the hearing, and by agreement of the parties, Plaintiff and Defendants shall meet and confer and file a joint stipulation of the facts relevant to Defendants' Motion no later than June 17, 2022. Defendants shall file their Motion to Dismiss, laying out all of their jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional grounds for dismissal, on or before June 24, 2022. Plaintiff shall respond to the Motion within eight (8) days after Defendants file their Motion. Defendants shall file their Reply within five (5) days after Plaintiff files his Response. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 6/13/2022. A copy of this Order sent electronically to all counsel of record and any party not represented by counsel, and a copy sent to pro se Plaintiff at his address of record. (asho, )
|
|
Filing 9
WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Jeffrey Thomas, Jr. Susan Beals waiver sent on 6/9/2022, answer due 8/8/2022; Robert Brink waiver sent on 6/9/2022, answer due 8/8/2022. (asho, )
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER (Scheduling Hearing) This matter comes before the Court for scheduling management. The Court hereby SCHEDULES an in-person status hearing in this matter at 10:30 a.m. on June 13, 2022. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 6/9/2022. A copy of this Order sent electronically to all counsel of record and any party not represented by counsel, and a copy sent to prose Plaintiff at his address of record.(asho, )
|
|
Filing 7
NOTICE of Appearance by Kevin Michael Gallagher on behalf of Susan Beals, Robert Brink (Gallagher, Kevin)
|
|
Filing 6
NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew N. Ferguson on behalf of Susan Beals, Robert Brink (Ferguson, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 5
NOTICE of Appearance by Steven G. Popps on behalf of Susan Beals, Robert Brink (Popps, Steven)
|
|
Status Hearing set for 6/13/2022 at 10:30 AM in Richmond Courtroom 6300 before District Judge David J. Novak. (cgar)
|
|
Filing 4
Summons Issued as to Susan Beals, Robert Brink. Given to Plaintiff to arrange service (asho, )
|
|
Filing 3
Proposed Scheduling Order by Jeffrey Thomas, Jr. (asho, )
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Pro Se E-Noticing by Jeffrey Thomas, Jr. (asho, )
|
|
Filing 1
PETITION for Writ of Mandamus ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 34683053887.), filed by Jeffrey Thomas, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Receipt, #2 Declaration, #3 83.1(M) Certification) (asho, )
|
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 Virginia Eastern 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.
