Scorpiusdeus
member
Yes by all means, if your cat was stomped, they raped your wife and CHARACTER and terrorized you, you should ream them. I guess I missed that you'd been so violated.
I was detained at school today (Aug 29 2007)
- Thread starter AJAX22
- Start date
- Status
Yes by all means, if your cat was stomped, they raped your wife and CHARACTER and terrorized you, you should ream them. I guess I missed that you'd been so violated.
JohnBT
Member
"Told OP to leave the backpack behind, yet said another officer picked it up to bring with as the OP was exiting the room."
Well heck yes, they told him to leave it behind, they didn't want him carrying it around if he had a gun or two in it. Well heck yes, another officer took control of the backpack for the same reason.
Lots of case law on this as another poster mentioned. Only he's ignoring a lot of it.
John
Well heck yes, they told him to leave it behind, they didn't want him carrying it around if he had a gun or two in it. Well heck yes, another officer took control of the backpack for the same reason.
Lots of case law on this as another poster mentioned. Only he's ignoring a lot of it.
John
JohnBT
Member
Part 2.
"Would you feel like the police did you a favor if they interrupted a meeting with your coworkers to question you and rifle through your belongings?"
Compared to what, taking me downtown and making me walk back to work after a few hours? Heck yes, do me a favor and ask them in front of the meeting - it cuts down on gossip.
Some people here, and you know who you are, come across as if talking to a police officer is the worst thing that could ever happen to you. It's sad.
John
"Would you feel like the police did you a favor if they interrupted a meeting with your coworkers to question you and rifle through your belongings?"
Compared to what, taking me downtown and making me walk back to work after a few hours? Heck yes, do me a favor and ask them in front of the meeting - it cuts down on gossip.
Some people here, and you know who you are, come across as if talking to a police officer is the worst thing that could ever happen to you. It's sad.
John
bogie
Member
Guys, if someone told the cops that the fellow had a gun in the backpack, what were they supposed to do? Bronze it?
The problem here isn't a terry frisk or a phone warrant for a backpack.
The problem is that the school kneejerks to "ohmigawd! izza gun!"
You have an opportunity for a bit of media controversy. It isn't going to last very long.
Then again, you could concentrate on con-law, but that won't get noticed by anyone other than a coupla lawyers...
The problem here isn't a terry frisk or a phone warrant for a backpack.
The problem is that the school kneejerks to "ohmigawd! izza gun!"
You have an opportunity for a bit of media controversy. It isn't going to last very long.
Then again, you could concentrate on con-law, but that won't get noticed by anyone other than a coupla lawyers...
langenc
Member
If you ever get asked "did you do xxxxxx?" Just discuss and calmy reply, most likey after the above question is posed again "You really dont know do you?"
Then the asker will be po'd to no end. If he knew why would he(she) ask in the first place?
Then the asker will be po'd to no end. If he knew why would he(she) ask in the first place?
poor_richard
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 466
If they have probable cause to believe there is a gun in the backpack, then no warrant is needed and they can do a search. They didn’t have PC, and I suspect that they knew that there was no PC. Anonymous tips are not PC, therefore the search was invalid and a violation of his rights. Suggesting that they took it because they “took control of the backpack for the same reason (that is “they didn’t want him carrying it around if he had a gun or two in it”)” is a straw argument because they clearly stated in the report that they took it because it was “under his immediate control”, not because they “didn’t want him carrying it around if he had a gun or two in it.”JohnBT said:
With all due respect, you are quoting me out of context.
Here it is in context:
poor_Richard said:
The quote you mention (out of context) demonstrates that the police report contradicts the OP’s recollection of events, and it demonstrates that the backpack was not under the OP's immediate control. The reason they used the term immediate control in the report is that (I suspect) they are trying to establish the backpack met the requirements of a Terry Search (a Terry Search does not require PC because it is done for “officer safety”), and it also is limited to the suspects immediate control. Therefore, they would have no justification to search the backpack if it wasn’t under the OP’s immediate control because anything in it would no longer represent a threat to the officer’s safety during an interview. Interestingly, I would even submit that since one of the officer’s had possession of the backpack (with four or five other officers to back him up), suggesting that the backpack was under the OP’s immediate control is akin to suggesting that the officers gun belt was also under the OP’s immediate control.
I do see your point for taking the backpack under their possession if they had reason to believe there was a gun in it (although the sequence of events and timing dispels any of that belief since they searched him the day after the anonymous tip), but that doesn’t give them legal ground for the search. Nor do I know if they had the legal justification to do so.
Also, I’ve followed this thread from the beginning, and don’t know what case law you are referring to that allows the detaining officer/s to search items not under the suspect’s immediate control during a detainment or interview. While they can take an “inventory” of his personal items obtained during an arrest, I see no mention of arrest in the police report. Not trying to be a smart alec, but it is possible I missed something. If you could show the post you are referring to it would be helpful. Thanks in advance.
Aguila Blanca
Member
Dr., you and I disagree right here, because IMHO the police did NOT have a right to search the backpack.Dr. Peter Venkman said:
This incident does not meet the test for being a Terry stop. In order to qualify, the initiating officer must have a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. These officers had no such reasonable suspicion. They had a complaint, and I will agree that they had a duty to investigate it. But the complaint was not in real time, and it was hardly specific enough to give rise to a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime was afoot.
Further, at the time of the search the backpack was clearly NOT under his control. HE left it in the classroom. A police officer subsequently retrieved it, at which time it was under the immediate control of the officer holding it. Thus, even if the incident DID rise to the level of a terry search (a point I am not conceding), that search would have had to be limited to Ajax's person.
On this we agree.
For starters, they could have looked at the posts he made, which formed the basis of the complaint. I'll bet they didn't even try. Devote a few detectives to the case? Well, why not? They seem to have had no problem devoting five officers (plus two supervisors who arrived later, if I remember the story correctly) to conduct a simple interview of ONE student. I wonder how big the force is on this campus. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a LARGE percentage of the entire shift on duty at the time. All over a ditzy female who said she saw someone writing something about guns?
Nope, I'm sorry. I am firmly in the camp of those who feel that the campus cops in this instance grossly overreacted, violated Ajax's rights to be free from unreasonable searches, and generally screwed the pooch (in military parlance). They should be held accountable for violating his rights, and for not knowing/understanding the rules under which they are allowed to operate.
javacodeman
Member
Thanks for the update! Good luck. Let us know what we can do to help.
java
java
Nothing like adding new life to an old tread--better late than never.
A, I got done fighting a 10 year civil battle against Montgomery Co. MD and DC for unlawful arrest and search. Most states have a Tort Claim law that requires you to put them on notice by sending them a letter (usually 6 month). Send one now for unlawful arrest, search and seizure. It is not necessarily required for a civil case your civil action will be under 42 USC 1983 in Federal Court for violation of your civil rights. There is no notice requirements under this cause of action and you have a 3yr statute of limitations. When your detention became an arrest depends upon the probable cause the cops had. Whether or not they had probable cause to further detain you in your case will mostly depend upon the "reliability" of who gave them the information and any further information that they had. For example, an anonymous email that reported you is not reliable...but a professor who may have witness it over your shoulder probably would be. If they had no reliable informant or information, your subsequent detention after your consent to search constituted a arrest. You were clearly not free to go...in fact you asked...and no reasonable person would believe that they could go with that many cops (I.e. show of force). As for the alleged warrant. Highly likely the telephone warrant was the cops BSing you. All these questions of fact will only come out during discovery in a civil case.
A civil case is all up hill. Mine took me 10 years to close from the time of the incident in 1997 and only got a settlement of less than a years salary. If you win, then you still have to get a jury to award you damages. It only takes one member on the jury to adopt a position that in light of "VT" and "homeland security" the cops were justified and award you $1. Cops know this and laugh at the constitution. It is not too often they cross someone like yourself that is astute and knows when his rights are being trashed. If people don't stand up for themselves and exercise their constitutional rights then it is not too long that it will have been eroded away to nothing. Good luck and let me know if I can help. Good luck and persevere.
BTW I read your post about joining the NRA and getting help from them. They are useless. NRA is only concerned with making money on issues surrounding gun debates. I sought them out with my case and on another to allow concealed weapons permit holder in VA to be allowed to carry in federal buildings in VA. The law is clear and broadly states that guns can be carried in Fed buildings "...or for lawful purposes". To me my right to self defense was clearly a lawful purpose...NRA was not interested. Funny isn't it when they don't wan to help a gun owner protect or expand your right to bear arms? I tried, associations, civil rights groups, senators, law school, ACLU and etc. BTW lawyers also know that there is no money in 1983 claims. Your damages are so hard to prove. No one is interested unless there is fame or fortune. I am assuming your Caucasian. If a you can assert "race based" then 42 USC 1981 also applies. Bottom line...(hope you find someone, but) your probably going to be by yourself in taking this to Court (unless you have $$ hanging around to pay a lawyer). Cops generally know this and that the risk finding themselves in a deposition or before a judge is small. This is why they don't worry about your Constitutional rights.
I read your report. There is nothing unlawful about the cops coming up to you and talking to you (even requesting to search) following up a complaint. But, where he states that "he needed to verify that ...was not carrying any guns before he was allowed to leave" is where this turn to a detention. There is no connection between shopping for firearms and posting opinions on the internet to lead one to reasonably believe that you would have a gun on your person. If there was such a legal precedence...I guess I might as well "assume the position" and spread'em right after I post this!
The student that reported you is not one that I feel would pass the reliability test. All the report says that they knew about her "reliability" and the information she passed was that she was "another student". Heck this could be an ex-girlfriend.
Search of things in your "immediate control" is only after a incident to a lawful arrest. I don't believe Dr. Venkman to be correct. Merely because something is on or about your person does not permit a warrantless search. Google Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). When the cop grabbed your bag...this was a seizure without any probable cause and certainly not incident to and arrest. Hunches and suspicion are not PC. The last 2 paragraph the cops just about admit that they were knowingly going to violate your rights to privacy, where in someway these violations would be OK if they minimized the "degree" by "the search would be conducted in his presence" and "limited to the areas..that could conceal a gun"
There are some great comments on this tread. Dr. Venkman is the only one who has been wrong with every bit of advice.
You will get a lot of opinions. But remember if people don't stand up for the Constitution, it will soon no longer be around. It took me 7 yrs in civil Court (probably will be shorter for you since your not trying to sue the District of Columbia in a District of Columbia Federal Court) but I am so glad I did it. People will tell you that the cops acted in good faith. Don't believe that position. They violated the law and your rights. Others will argue that they were justified because you could have had a gun and they could have stopped another VT. That is true, but the alternative is that cops be allowed to search you anytime, any place for any reason. The Constitution is the only thing that prevents this from happening in this Country. It is worth standing up for it. If you want any copies of my Complaint, motions or oppositions I will gladly give you copies to use for examples in your case.
A, I got done fighting a 10 year civil battle against Montgomery Co. MD and DC for unlawful arrest and search. Most states have a Tort Claim law that requires you to put them on notice by sending them a letter (usually 6 month). Send one now for unlawful arrest, search and seizure. It is not necessarily required for a civil case your civil action will be under 42 USC 1983 in Federal Court for violation of your civil rights. There is no notice requirements under this cause of action and you have a 3yr statute of limitations. When your detention became an arrest depends upon the probable cause the cops had. Whether or not they had probable cause to further detain you in your case will mostly depend upon the "reliability" of who gave them the information and any further information that they had. For example, an anonymous email that reported you is not reliable...but a professor who may have witness it over your shoulder probably would be. If they had no reliable informant or information, your subsequent detention after your consent to search constituted a arrest. You were clearly not free to go...in fact you asked...and no reasonable person would believe that they could go with that many cops (I.e. show of force). As for the alleged warrant. Highly likely the telephone warrant was the cops BSing you. All these questions of fact will only come out during discovery in a civil case.
A civil case is all up hill. Mine took me 10 years to close from the time of the incident in 1997 and only got a settlement of less than a years salary. If you win, then you still have to get a jury to award you damages. It only takes one member on the jury to adopt a position that in light of "VT" and "homeland security" the cops were justified and award you $1. Cops know this and laugh at the constitution. It is not too often they cross someone like yourself that is astute and knows when his rights are being trashed. If people don't stand up for themselves and exercise their constitutional rights then it is not too long that it will have been eroded away to nothing. Good luck and let me know if I can help. Good luck and persevere.
BTW I read your post about joining the NRA and getting help from them. They are useless. NRA is only concerned with making money on issues surrounding gun debates. I sought them out with my case and on another to allow concealed weapons permit holder in VA to be allowed to carry in federal buildings in VA. The law is clear and broadly states that guns can be carried in Fed buildings "...or for lawful purposes". To me my right to self defense was clearly a lawful purpose...NRA was not interested. Funny isn't it when they don't wan to help a gun owner protect or expand your right to bear arms? I tried, associations, civil rights groups, senators, law school, ACLU and etc. BTW lawyers also know that there is no money in 1983 claims. Your damages are so hard to prove. No one is interested unless there is fame or fortune. I am assuming your Caucasian. If a you can assert "race based" then 42 USC 1981 also applies. Bottom line...(hope you find someone, but) your probably going to be by yourself in taking this to Court (unless you have $$ hanging around to pay a lawyer). Cops generally know this and that the risk finding themselves in a deposition or before a judge is small. This is why they don't worry about your Constitutional rights.
I read your report. There is nothing unlawful about the cops coming up to you and talking to you (even requesting to search) following up a complaint. But, where he states that "he needed to verify that ...was not carrying any guns before he was allowed to leave" is where this turn to a detention. There is no connection between shopping for firearms and posting opinions on the internet to lead one to reasonably believe that you would have a gun on your person. If there was such a legal precedence...I guess I might as well "assume the position" and spread'em right after I post this!
The student that reported you is not one that I feel would pass the reliability test. All the report says that they knew about her "reliability" and the information she passed was that she was "another student". Heck this could be an ex-girlfriend.
Search of things in your "immediate control" is only after a incident to a lawful arrest. I don't believe Dr. Venkman to be correct. Merely because something is on or about your person does not permit a warrantless search. Google Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). When the cop grabbed your bag...this was a seizure without any probable cause and certainly not incident to and arrest. Hunches and suspicion are not PC. The last 2 paragraph the cops just about admit that they were knowingly going to violate your rights to privacy, where in someway these violations would be OK if they minimized the "degree" by "the search would be conducted in his presence" and "limited to the areas..that could conceal a gun"
There are some great comments on this tread. Dr. Venkman is the only one who has been wrong with every bit of advice.
You will get a lot of opinions. But remember if people don't stand up for the Constitution, it will soon no longer be around. It took me 7 yrs in civil Court (probably will be shorter for you since your not trying to sue the District of Columbia in a District of Columbia Federal Court) but I am so glad I did it. People will tell you that the cops acted in good faith. Don't believe that position. They violated the law and your rights. Others will argue that they were justified because you could have had a gun and they could have stopped another VT. That is true, but the alternative is that cops be allowed to search you anytime, any place for any reason. The Constitution is the only thing that prevents this from happening in this Country. It is worth standing up for it. If you want any copies of my Complaint, motions or oppositions I will gladly give you copies to use for examples in your case.
Here is what it takes to protect your constitutional rights...
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-02447-RJL
PIERCE v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al
Assigned to: Judge Richard J. Leon
Demand: $1,000,000
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Date Filed: 10/12/2000
Date Terminated: 10/12/2006
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
WILLIAM M. PIERCE represented by Jimmy A. Bell
9610 Marlboro Pike
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
(301) 599-7620
Fax: (301) 599-7623
Email: [email protected]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
MONTGOMERY COUNTY represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
101 Monroe Street
Third Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
(240) 777-6700
Fax: 240-777-6705
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
101 Monroe Street
Rockville, MD 20850-2540
(240) 777-6706
Fax: (240) 777-6706
Email: [email protected]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
101 Monroe Street
Thrird Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
(240) 777-6700
Email: [email protected]
TERMINATED: 05/15/2002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN
in his individual and official capacity as County Executive for Montgomery County represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
TERMINATED: 05/15/2002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
CHARLES A. MOOSE
COL, in his individual and official capacity as Chief, Montgomery County Police Department represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 05/15/2002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
WILLIAM C. HILL
Officer, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Montgomery County Police Department represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 05/15/2002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
JOHN DOE JACOBS
Officer, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Montgomery County Police Department represented by Joann Robertson
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
HENRRI JAMIOY QUISTIAL
in his individual and possible official capacity as an officer assisting both Hill and Jacobs c/o Montgomery County Police Department
Defendant
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 686-7600
Fax: (202) 293-3130
Email: [email protected]
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Burkett
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
DC GOVERNMENT
441 4th Street, NW
Suite 6S043
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 724-6647
Fax: (202) 727-3625
Email: [email protected]
TERMINATED: 11/30/2004
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Jackson
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Civil Litigation Division
441 4th Street, NW
6th Floor South
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 724-6618
Fax: (202) 724-3526
Email: [email protected]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS
Mayor, in his individual and official capacity as Mayor of the District of Columbia represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
efendant
CHARLES H. RAMSEY
in his individual and official capacity as Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
ROBERT A. ANDERSON
Officer 339/2D, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
J. NELLES
Sgt, S535/2D,in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department
Defendant
S. ODELL
Sgt, S189/2D, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department
Defendant
J. A. MITCHELL
Officer, S256/2D, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed # Docket Text
10/12/2000 1 COMPLAINT filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE; jury demand; attachments (10) (bm) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
10/12/2000 SUMMONS (24) issued for defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, CHARLES A. MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HILL, DOE JACOBS, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, DC, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MPD, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ROBERT A. ANDERSON, J. NELLES, S. ODELL, and J. A. MITCHELL (bm) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
11/14/2000 2 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, defendant DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, defendant CHARLES A. MOOSE, defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY . Date waiver signed: 10/30/00 (tb) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
12/18/2000 3 MOTION filed by defendant DC, defendant ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, defendant MPD, defendant CHARLES H. RAMSEY, defendant ROBERT A. ANDERSON, defendant J. A. MITCHELL to dismiss complaint [1-1] in lieu of an answer to the complaint ; affidavits (1) (cdw) (Entered: 12/19/2000)
12/26/2000 4 MOTION filed by defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, defendant DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, defendant CHARLES A. MOOSE, defendant WILLIAM C. HILL, defendant MPD to extend time to 1/27/01 to answer complaint [1-1] (cdw) (Entered: 12/28/2000)
12/28/2000 5 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting motion to extend time to 1/27/01 to answer complaint [1-1] [4-1] by defendantssss ; Answer extended to 1/27/01 for MONTGOMERY COUNTY, for CHARLES A. MOOSE, for DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, for MONTGOMERY COUNTY (N) (dam) (Entered: 12/29/2000)
01/02/2001 6 RESPONSE by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE in opposition to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] in lieu of an answer to the complaint [3-1] by defendants. (pob) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
01/02/2001 7 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for appointment of counsel (tb) (Entered: 01/08/2001)
01/02/2001 8 WAIVER of service of summons by defendants; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, CHARLES A. MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HILL, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ROBERT A. ANDERSON, J. A. MITCHELL (tb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
01/29/2001 9 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler status hearing set for 10:00 2/22/01 (N) (pob) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
01/29/2001 10 MOTION filed by defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, CHARLES A. MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HILL to dismiss complaint [1-1] (cdw) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
01/29/2001 11 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT [1-1] by defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, CHARLES A. MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HILL (cdw) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
02/02/2001 12 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : denying motion for appointment of counsel [7-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE (N) (pob) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
02/12/2001 13 ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM in defendants answer [11-1] by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE (cdw) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
02/12/2001 14 RESPONSE by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE in opposition to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [10-1] by WILLIAM C. HILL, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, and motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] in lieu of an answer to the complaint [3-1] by defendants (cdw) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
02/14/2001 15 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendants DC, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MPD, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ROBERT A. ANDERSON, J. A. MITCHELL to reschedule initial scheduling conference (cdw) Modified on 02/21/2001 (Entered: 02/15/2001)
02/16/2001 16 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting motion to continue initial scheduling conference [15-1] by defendants (N) (pob) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
02/16/2001 SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing set for 9:30 2/23/01 before Judge Gladys Kessler . (pob) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
02/21/2001 17 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT/REPORT PURSUANT TO L.R. 16 filed by plaintiff, defendants (cdw) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
02/23/2001 STATUS HEARING before Judge Gladys Kessler: status hearing set for 9:30 3/22/01 Reporter: Susan Tyner (pob) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
03/08/2001 18 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : status hearing set for 9:30 3/22/01 (N) (jwd) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
03/22/2001 STATUS HEARING before Judge Gladys Kessler: discovery closes 10/1/01; status hearing set for 9:45 8/3/01; plaintiff's rule 26(a)1 7/1/01; defendant's rule 26(a)1 due 8/1/01; Witness list to be exchanged by 5/1/01; Case assigned to the Complex track (track three). Reporter: Susan Tyner (pob) (Entered: 03/22/2001)
03/22/2001 19 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler confirming status hearing of 03/22/01 (N) (pob) (Entered: 03/22/2001)
(to be continued)
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-02447-RJL
PIERCE v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al
Assigned to: Judge Richard J. Leon
Demand: $1,000,000
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Date Filed: 10/12/2000
Date Terminated: 10/12/2006
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
WILLIAM M. PIERCE represented by Jimmy A. Bell
9610 Marlboro Pike
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
(301) 599-7620
Fax: (301) 599-7623
Email: [email protected]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
MONTGOMERY COUNTY represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
101 Monroe Street
Third Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
(240) 777-6700
Fax: 240-777-6705
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
101 Monroe Street
Rockville, MD 20850-2540
(240) 777-6706
Fax: (240) 777-6706
Email: [email protected]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
101 Monroe Street
Thrird Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
(240) 777-6700
Email: [email protected]
TERMINATED: 05/15/2002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN
in his individual and official capacity as County Executive for Montgomery County represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
TERMINATED: 05/15/2002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
CHARLES A. MOOSE
COL, in his individual and official capacity as Chief, Montgomery County Police Department represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 05/15/2002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
WILLIAM C. HILL
Officer, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Montgomery County Police Department represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 05/15/2002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
JOHN DOE JACOBS
Officer, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Montgomery County Police Department represented by Joann Robertson
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
HENRRI JAMIOY QUISTIAL
in his individual and possible official capacity as an officer assisting both Hill and Jacobs c/o Montgomery County Police Department
Defendant
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 686-7600
Fax: (202) 293-3130
Email: [email protected]
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Burkett
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
DC GOVERNMENT
441 4th Street, NW
Suite 6S043
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 724-6647
Fax: (202) 727-3625
Email: [email protected]
TERMINATED: 11/30/2004
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Jackson
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Civil Litigation Division
441 4th Street, NW
6th Floor South
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 724-6618
Fax: (202) 724-3526
Email: [email protected]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS
Mayor, in his individual and official capacity as Mayor of the District of Columbia represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
efendant
CHARLES H. RAMSEY
in his individual and official capacity as Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
ROBERT A. ANDERSON
Officer 339/2D, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
J. NELLES
Sgt, S535/2D,in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department
Defendant
S. ODELL
Sgt, S189/2D, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department
Defendant
J. A. MITCHELL
Officer, S256/2D, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed # Docket Text
10/12/2000 1 COMPLAINT filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE; jury demand; attachments (10) (bm) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
10/12/2000 SUMMONS (24) issued for defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, CHARLES A. MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HILL, DOE JACOBS, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, DC, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MPD, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ROBERT A. ANDERSON, J. NELLES, S. ODELL, and J. A. MITCHELL (bm) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
11/14/2000 2 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, defendant DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, defendant CHARLES A. MOOSE, defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY . Date waiver signed: 10/30/00 (tb) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
12/18/2000 3 MOTION filed by defendant DC, defendant ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, defendant MPD, defendant CHARLES H. RAMSEY, defendant ROBERT A. ANDERSON, defendant J. A. MITCHELL to dismiss complaint [1-1] in lieu of an answer to the complaint ; affidavits (1) (cdw) (Entered: 12/19/2000)
12/26/2000 4 MOTION filed by defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, defendant DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, defendant CHARLES A. MOOSE, defendant WILLIAM C. HILL, defendant MPD to extend time to 1/27/01 to answer complaint [1-1] (cdw) (Entered: 12/28/2000)
12/28/2000 5 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting motion to extend time to 1/27/01 to answer complaint [1-1] [4-1] by defendantssss ; Answer extended to 1/27/01 for MONTGOMERY COUNTY, for CHARLES A. MOOSE, for DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, for MONTGOMERY COUNTY (N) (dam) (Entered: 12/29/2000)
01/02/2001 6 RESPONSE by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE in opposition to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] in lieu of an answer to the complaint [3-1] by defendants. (pob) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
01/02/2001 7 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for appointment of counsel (tb) (Entered: 01/08/2001)
01/02/2001 8 WAIVER of service of summons by defendants; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, CHARLES A. MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HILL, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ROBERT A. ANDERSON, J. A. MITCHELL (tb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
01/29/2001 9 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler status hearing set for 10:00 2/22/01 (N) (pob) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
01/29/2001 10 MOTION filed by defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, CHARLES A. MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HILL to dismiss complaint [1-1] (cdw) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
01/29/2001 11 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT [1-1] by defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, CHARLES A. MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HILL (cdw) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
02/02/2001 12 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : denying motion for appointment of counsel [7-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE (N) (pob) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
02/12/2001 13 ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM in defendants answer [11-1] by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE (cdw) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
02/12/2001 14 RESPONSE by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE in opposition to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [10-1] by WILLIAM C. HILL, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, and motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] in lieu of an answer to the complaint [3-1] by defendants (cdw) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
02/14/2001 15 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendants DC, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MPD, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ROBERT A. ANDERSON, J. A. MITCHELL to reschedule initial scheduling conference (cdw) Modified on 02/21/2001 (Entered: 02/15/2001)
02/16/2001 16 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting motion to continue initial scheduling conference [15-1] by defendants (N) (pob) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
02/16/2001 SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing set for 9:30 2/23/01 before Judge Gladys Kessler . (pob) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
02/21/2001 17 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT/REPORT PURSUANT TO L.R. 16 filed by plaintiff, defendants (cdw) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
02/23/2001 STATUS HEARING before Judge Gladys Kessler: status hearing set for 9:30 3/22/01 Reporter: Susan Tyner (pob) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
03/08/2001 18 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : status hearing set for 9:30 3/22/01 (N) (jwd) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
03/22/2001 STATUS HEARING before Judge Gladys Kessler: discovery closes 10/1/01; status hearing set for 9:45 8/3/01; plaintiff's rule 26(a)1 7/1/01; defendant's rule 26(a)1 due 8/1/01; Witness list to be exchanged by 5/1/01; Case assigned to the Complex track (track three). Reporter: Susan Tyner (pob) (Entered: 03/22/2001)
03/22/2001 19 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler confirming status hearing of 03/22/01 (N) (pob) (Entered: 03/22/2001)
(to be continued)
What it takes to protect your constitutional rights (continued)
03/27/2001 20 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: status hearing set for 9:45 8/3/01 (N) (pob) (Entered: 03/27/2001)
04/30/2001 21 WITNESS LIST by defendants (cdw) (Entered: 05/01/2001)
07/23/2001 SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing reset for 9:45 8/15/01 before Judge Gladys Kessler . (pob) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
07/23/2001 22 RULE 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, defendant DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, defendant CHARLES A. MOOSE, defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, defendant WILLIAM C. HILL, defendant JOHN DOE JACOBS RE: disclousre of expert witnesses (bjsp) (Entered: 07/25/2001)
07/26/2001 SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing reset for 10:30 8/15/01 before Judge Gladys Kessler Courtroom 19, 6th Floor. (pob) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
09/04/2001 23 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for order compelling discovery and interrogatories under Rule 37 , to compel required disclosures under Rule 26(a) , to compel deposition of Charles Ramsey , and/or for enlargement of time pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2) ; exhibits (5) (cdw) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
09/24/2001 24 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL, substituting William Burkett for attorney Andrew Stewart Hoenig for J. A. MITCHELL, ROBERT A. ANDERSON, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, MPD, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, DC (cdw) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
09/27/2001 25 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Gladys Kessler (N) (adc) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
09/27/2001 26 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : granting in part, denying in part motion to dismiss of the Montgomery County defendants [1-1] [10-1],all claims against Montgomery County defedants are dismissed except for the 1983 claim against Montgomery County and the 1983 claim against Police Chief Moose; granting in part, denying in part motion of the District of Columbia defendants to dismiss [1-1] in lieu of an answer to the complaint [3-1]; all claims against the District of Columbia defendants are dismissed except for the 1983 claim against the District of Columbia status hearing set for 9:30 10/22/01 (N) (adc) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
10/01/2001 27 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC to extend time for filing discovery to 11/2/01 (cdw) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
10/01/2001 28 MOTION filed by defendant DC to stay disposition of plaintiff's motion to compel answers to discovery (cdw) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
10/03/2001 29 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting motion to extend time for filing discovery to 11/2/01 [27-1] by DC; Discovery now closes 11/2/01 (N) (pob) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
10/10/2001 30 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE to request an amended judgment to the opinion filed 9/27/01 pursuant to Rule 52(b) (cdw) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
11/02/2001 STATUS HEARING before Judge Gladys Kessler: denying motion to stay disposition of plaintiff's motion to compel answers to discovery by DC [28-1] moot, denying motion to compel required disclosures under Rule 26(a) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-2] moot, denying motion to compel deposition of Charles Ramsey by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-3] moot; defendants to file response to plaintiff's motion for recosideration by 11/23/01; reply due 11/26/01; plaintiff to file motion of what discovery is requested by 11/23/01; defendant's response due 12/5/01; reply due 12/10/01; oral motion by defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY to extend discovery heard and granted. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (pob) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
11/02/2001 31 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: denying motion to compel required disclosures under Rule 26(a) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-2] moot, denying motion to compel deposition of Charles Ramsey by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-3] moot, denying motion for enlargement of time pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-4] moot (N) (pob) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
11/02/2001 32 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : denying motion to stay disposition of plaintiff's motion to compel answers to discovery by DC [28-1] moot (N) (pob) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
11/08/2001 33 RESPONSE by defendant DC, defendant ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, defendant MPD, defendant CHARLES H. RAMSEY, defendant ROBERT A. ANDERSON, defendant J. NELLES, defendant S. ODELL, defendant J. A. MITCHELL in opposition to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration by WILLIAM M. PIERCE; c/m 11/8/01 (cdw) (Entered: 11/12/2001)
11/26/2001 34 REPLY by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE to response in opposition to motion for reconsideration to the opinion filed 9/27/01 and/or request granting permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 52(a)(3) of the Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia [30-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE (bm) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
11/30/2001 35 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: that plaintiff file a praecipe with the Court by 12/12/01, indicating the status of his discovery requests. (N) (dam) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
12/13/2001 36 RESPONSE by defendant ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, defendant MPD, defendant CHARLES H. RAMSEY, defendant ROBERT A. ANDERSON, defendant J. NELLES, defendant S. ODELL, defendant J. A. MITCHELL to order [35-1] (cdw) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
03/04/2002 37 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE to compel interrogatories and production of documents from defendants DC and Montgomery County (cdw) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
04/04/2002 CASE REASSIGNED from Judge Gladys Kessler to Judge Richard J. Leon (cdw) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
04/25/2002 SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing set for 11:00 5/15/02 before Judge Richard J. Leon . (bm) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
05/15/2002 STATUS HEARING before Judge Richard J. Leon : taken under advisement by WILLIAM M. PIERCE motion to request an amended judgment to the opinion filed 9/27/01 pursuant to Rule 52(b) [30-1]; Montgomery County defendants have 10 days in which to supplement there response to the motion to amend judgment; status hearing set for 2:30 7/16/02 Reporter: Gordon Slodysko (bm) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
07/16/2002 STATUS HEARING before Judge Richard J. Leon, Plintiff's PIERCE motion to reconsider-denied. no new date set. : Reporter: Jon Hundley (Miller) (whb) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
07/16/2002 38 ORDER, that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration be and hereby is Denied by Judge Richard J. Leon : (N) (whb) (Entered: 07/19/2002)
07/19/2002 39 ORDER referring the above-captioned case to a Magistrate Judge for the resolution of all discovery disputes, by Judge Richard J. Leon : (N) (whb) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
07/19/2002 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola for pending discovery disputes (cp) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
08/01/2002 40 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for cooperation with discovery for District of Columbia ; Attachments (2) (nmr) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
08/01/2002 41 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for cooperation with discovery for Montgomery County ; Exhibits (3) (nmr) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
08/01/2002 42 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for leave to appeal Court's Order of 7/16/02 pursuant to Rule 5(a)(3) of the Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (nmr) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
08/12/2002 43 RESPONSE by defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL in opposition to motion for cooperation with discovery for Montgomery County [41-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE; Exhibits (5) (nmr) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
08/12/2002 44 RESPONSE by defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL in opposition to motion for leave to appeal Court's Order of 7/16/02 pursuant to Rule 5(a)(3) of the Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the of Columbia [42-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE; Exhibit (1). (nmr) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
08/12/2002 46 RESPONSE by defendant DC in opposition to motion for cooperation with discovery for District of Columbia [40-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (nmr) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
08/14/2002 45 ORDER by Judge Richard J. Leon : denying motion for leave to appeal Court's Order of 7/16/02 pursuant to Rule 5(a)(3) of the Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia [42-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE (N) (whb) (Entered: 08/15/2002)
10/24/2002 47 REQUEST by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for a telephonic conference with the Court (nmr) (Entered: 10/25/2002)
12/23/2002 48 NOTICE by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE of telephone conference with the court on 1/29 (bcs) (Entered: 12/24/2002)
03/07/2003 49 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola (N) (ldc) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
03/07/2003 50 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola : granting in part, denying in part motion for cooperation with discovery for Montgomery County [41-1], granting in part, denying in part motion for cooperation with discovery for District of Columbia [40-1], granting in part, denying in part motion to compel interrogatories and production of documents from defendants DC and Montgomery County [37-1] (N) (ldc) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
02/01/2004 51 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for status hearing held on dates May 15, 2002. Court Reporter: Gordon A. Slodysko (jf, ) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
02/12/2004 53 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED of Status Conference held on 11/2/01 before Judge Kessler. Court Reporter: Santa Theresa Zizzo (rje, ) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
02/18/2004 52 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for status hearing dates 7/16/02. (bcs, ) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
05/26/2004 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Burkett, William) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
06/09/2004 55 MOTION for Sanctions against the defendants for failure to disclose in accordance with Rule 37(b)(2) and rule 37(c)(1) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Exhibits 1 thru 23). Modified on 6/14/2004 (jf, ). (Entered: 06/10/2004)
06/09/2004 NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Bulky Exhibits 1 thru 23 which were inadvertently omitted from Document No. 55 have been attached to the filing and are being held in the Clerk's Office (Room 1225), public viewing is from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
06/15/2004 56 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 55 sanctions filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Burkett, William) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
06/21/2004 57 MOTION for Extension of Time in Which to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions by WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE. (nmw, ) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
06/23/2004 Paperless ORDER granting 57 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge John M. Facciola on 6/22/04. (SP, ) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
06/25/2004 MINUTE ORDER denying 55 Motion for Sanctions . Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 06/25/04. (lcrjl1, ) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
07/16/2004 58 RESPONSE to 55 Motion for Sanctions filed by DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHARLES A. MOOSE. (nmw, ) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
07/23/2004 59 REPLY to opposition by defendants of Montgomery County to plaintiff's motion for sanctions 55 filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
11/30/2004 60 NOTICE of Appearance by David A. Jackson on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Jackson, David) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
02/01/2005 61 Order advising plaintiff to respond or Court may deem matter as conceded re 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Responses due by 2/25/2005. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 1/31/05. (whb) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
02/24/2005 62 Memorandum in opposition to Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA's motion for summary judgment 54 filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
02/24/2005 63 RESPONSE to Court's Order dated January 27, 2005 61 filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
02/24/2005 64 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MOTION for Sanctions against the defendants of the District of Columbia and Montgomery County for failure to disclose in accordance with Rule 37(b)(2) and Rule 37(c)(1) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 thru 22)(jf, ) Modified on 3/1/2005 (jf, ). (Entered: 03/01/2005)
02/24/2005 NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Document No. 64 was entered in error as a duplicate filing of pleading No. 55 as per chambers. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
03/22/2005 65 REPLY to opposition to motion for sanctions 55 filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
03/29/2005 66 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Granting District of Columbia's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 3/28/05. (whb) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
04/28/2005 Notice of Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/13/2005 03:00 PM in Courtroom 7 before Judge Richard J. Leon. (whb) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
04/29/2005 67 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 66 Memorandum & Opinion filed on 03/29/05 by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. Filing fee $ 255, receipt number 134302. (jf, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
05/03/2005 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 67 Notice of Appeal (jf, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
05/13/2005 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard J. Leon : Status Conference held on 5/13/2005. (Court Reporter Cathy Crump-Miller Reporter.) (whb) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
06/03/2005 USCA Case Number 05-7073 for 67 Notice of Appeal filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE,. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
01/17/2006 68 MANDATE of USCA (certified copy)It is hereby ordered that the order to show cause be discharged; It is further ordered on the courts own motion that the appeal be dismissed;USCA#05-7073 (jsc) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
04/18/2006 69 ORDERED that the parties are to submit within 10 days a proposed scheduling order or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 4/14/06. (whb, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
04/19/2006 70 NOTICE of Appearance by Jimmy A. Bell on behalf of WILLIAM M. PIERCE (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
04/20/2006 71 Consent MOTION for Order Referring This Case for Mediation before a United States Magistrate Judge by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
04/20/2006 72 MOTION for Leave to File Late Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosures by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 -- Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosures)(Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
04/20/2006 73 MOTION for Order Setting Pretrial Conference and Trial Dates by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
04/24/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 71 Motion for Order referring this Case for Mediation before a Magistrate Judge, granting 72 Motion for Leave to Late-File Plaintiff's 26(a)(2) Expert Disclosures, and granting 73 Motion for a Status Hearing. It is further Ordered that a status hearing is scheduled for June 2, 2006, at 11:30am in Courtroom #14 before Judge Richard J. Leon and that the case is referred to a Magistrate Judge for mediation purposes only. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 4/24/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
04/24/2006 74 RULE 26a2 STATEMENT by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (jf, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
05/01/2006 75 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Order,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,, /Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Late Plaintiff's Rule 26(A)(2) Disclosures by MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS. (Robertson, Joann) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
05/01/2006 76 Memorandum in opposition to re 75 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Order,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,, /Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Late Plaintiff's Rule filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
05/05/2006 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Robinson for Mediation only. (jsc) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
05/08/2006 Set Hearing: Settlement Conference set for Wednesday, 5/31/2006 @ 09:30 AM in Room 2315-2nd Floor, E. Barrett Prettyman Bldg., before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. (EW) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
05/09/2006 77 REPLY to opposition to motion re 75 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Order,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,, /Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Late Plaintiff's Rule (Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration filed by MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS. (Robertson, Joann) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
05/16/2006 Notice of Rescheduled Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/2/06 is Rescheduled to 7/7/2006 10:30 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Richard J. Leon. (whb) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
05/23/2006 MINUTE ORDER denying 75 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 5/23/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
05/26/2006 78 Consent MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference by MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS. (Robertson, Joann) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
05/26/2006 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on 5/26/06 granting 78 Motion to Continue Settlement Conference to June 14, 2006. (EW) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
05/26/2006 Set/Reset Hearing: Settlement Conference reset for Wednesday, 6/14/2006 @ 02:00 PM in Room 2315-2nd Floor, E. Barrett Prettyman Building before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. (EW) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
06/14/2006 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson : Settlement Conference held on 6/14/2006;further settlement conference to be scheduled after status hearing on 7/7/06. (EW) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
07/06/2006 79 Joint MOTION to Vacate Joint Consent Motion to Vacate Status Conference and Settlement Conference by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
07/07/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 79 Motion to Vacate Status Conference and Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 7/7/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
07/30/2006 80 Consent MOTION to Dismiss Consent Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint as to All Defendants, Except Defendant Montgomery County, Maryland by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 07/30/2006)
08/07/2006 Notice of Hearing: Status Conference set for 9/22/06 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Richard J. Leon.(lcrjl1) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
08/07/2006 Notice of Re-Scheduled Hearing: Status Conference set for 10/2/06 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Richard J. Leon.(lcrjl1) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
08/07/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 80 Consent MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint as to All Defendants, Except Defendant Montgomery County, Maryland. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 8/7/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
10/02/2006 Notice of Hearing: Status Conference set for 10/16/2006 04:00 PM in Courtroom 18 before Judge Richard J. Leon.(lcrjl1) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
10/11/2006 81 Consent MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
10/12/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 81 Consent MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 10/12/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
03/27/2001 20 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: status hearing set for 9:45 8/3/01 (N) (pob) (Entered: 03/27/2001)
04/30/2001 21 WITNESS LIST by defendants (cdw) (Entered: 05/01/2001)
07/23/2001 SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing reset for 9:45 8/15/01 before Judge Gladys Kessler . (pob) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
07/23/2001 22 RULE 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, defendant DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, defendant CHARLES A. MOOSE, defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, defendant WILLIAM C. HILL, defendant JOHN DOE JACOBS RE: disclousre of expert witnesses (bjsp) (Entered: 07/25/2001)
07/26/2001 SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing reset for 10:30 8/15/01 before Judge Gladys Kessler Courtroom 19, 6th Floor. (pob) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
09/04/2001 23 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for order compelling discovery and interrogatories under Rule 37 , to compel required disclosures under Rule 26(a) , to compel deposition of Charles Ramsey , and/or for enlargement of time pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2) ; exhibits (5) (cdw) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
09/24/2001 24 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL, substituting William Burkett for attorney Andrew Stewart Hoenig for J. A. MITCHELL, ROBERT A. ANDERSON, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, MPD, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, DC (cdw) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
09/27/2001 25 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Gladys Kessler (N) (adc) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
09/27/2001 26 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : granting in part, denying in part motion to dismiss of the Montgomery County defendants [1-1] [10-1],all claims against Montgomery County defedants are dismissed except for the 1983 claim against Montgomery County and the 1983 claim against Police Chief Moose; granting in part, denying in part motion of the District of Columbia defendants to dismiss [1-1] in lieu of an answer to the complaint [3-1]; all claims against the District of Columbia defendants are dismissed except for the 1983 claim against the District of Columbia status hearing set for 9:30 10/22/01 (N) (adc) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
10/01/2001 27 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC to extend time for filing discovery to 11/2/01 (cdw) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
10/01/2001 28 MOTION filed by defendant DC to stay disposition of plaintiff's motion to compel answers to discovery (cdw) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
10/03/2001 29 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting motion to extend time for filing discovery to 11/2/01 [27-1] by DC; Discovery now closes 11/2/01 (N) (pob) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
10/10/2001 30 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE to request an amended judgment to the opinion filed 9/27/01 pursuant to Rule 52(b) (cdw) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
11/02/2001 STATUS HEARING before Judge Gladys Kessler: denying motion to stay disposition of plaintiff's motion to compel answers to discovery by DC [28-1] moot, denying motion to compel required disclosures under Rule 26(a) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-2] moot, denying motion to compel deposition of Charles Ramsey by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-3] moot; defendants to file response to plaintiff's motion for recosideration by 11/23/01; reply due 11/26/01; plaintiff to file motion of what discovery is requested by 11/23/01; defendant's response due 12/5/01; reply due 12/10/01; oral motion by defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY to extend discovery heard and granted. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (pob) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
11/02/2001 31 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: denying motion to compel required disclosures under Rule 26(a) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-2] moot, denying motion to compel deposition of Charles Ramsey by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-3] moot, denying motion for enlargement of time pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-4] moot (N) (pob) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
11/02/2001 32 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : denying motion to stay disposition of plaintiff's motion to compel answers to discovery by DC [28-1] moot (N) (pob) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
11/08/2001 33 RESPONSE by defendant DC, defendant ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, defendant MPD, defendant CHARLES H. RAMSEY, defendant ROBERT A. ANDERSON, defendant J. NELLES, defendant S. ODELL, defendant J. A. MITCHELL in opposition to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration by WILLIAM M. PIERCE; c/m 11/8/01 (cdw) (Entered: 11/12/2001)
11/26/2001 34 REPLY by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE to response in opposition to motion for reconsideration to the opinion filed 9/27/01 and/or request granting permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 52(a)(3) of the Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia [30-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE (bm) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
11/30/2001 35 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: that plaintiff file a praecipe with the Court by 12/12/01, indicating the status of his discovery requests. (N) (dam) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
12/13/2001 36 RESPONSE by defendant ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, defendant MPD, defendant CHARLES H. RAMSEY, defendant ROBERT A. ANDERSON, defendant J. NELLES, defendant S. ODELL, defendant J. A. MITCHELL to order [35-1] (cdw) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
03/04/2002 37 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE to compel interrogatories and production of documents from defendants DC and Montgomery County (cdw) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
04/04/2002 CASE REASSIGNED from Judge Gladys Kessler to Judge Richard J. Leon (cdw) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
04/25/2002 SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing set for 11:00 5/15/02 before Judge Richard J. Leon . (bm) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
05/15/2002 STATUS HEARING before Judge Richard J. Leon : taken under advisement by WILLIAM M. PIERCE motion to request an amended judgment to the opinion filed 9/27/01 pursuant to Rule 52(b) [30-1]; Montgomery County defendants have 10 days in which to supplement there response to the motion to amend judgment; status hearing set for 2:30 7/16/02 Reporter: Gordon Slodysko (bm) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
07/16/2002 STATUS HEARING before Judge Richard J. Leon, Plintiff's PIERCE motion to reconsider-denied. no new date set. : Reporter: Jon Hundley (Miller) (whb) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
07/16/2002 38 ORDER, that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration be and hereby is Denied by Judge Richard J. Leon : (N) (whb) (Entered: 07/19/2002)
07/19/2002 39 ORDER referring the above-captioned case to a Magistrate Judge for the resolution of all discovery disputes, by Judge Richard J. Leon : (N) (whb) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
07/19/2002 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola for pending discovery disputes (cp) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
08/01/2002 40 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for cooperation with discovery for District of Columbia ; Attachments (2) (nmr) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
08/01/2002 41 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for cooperation with discovery for Montgomery County ; Exhibits (3) (nmr) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
08/01/2002 42 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for leave to appeal Court's Order of 7/16/02 pursuant to Rule 5(a)(3) of the Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (nmr) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
08/12/2002 43 RESPONSE by defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL in opposition to motion for cooperation with discovery for Montgomery County [41-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE; Exhibits (5) (nmr) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
08/12/2002 44 RESPONSE by defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL in opposition to motion for leave to appeal Court's Order of 7/16/02 pursuant to Rule 5(a)(3) of the Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the of Columbia [42-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE; Exhibit (1). (nmr) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
08/12/2002 46 RESPONSE by defendant DC in opposition to motion for cooperation with discovery for District of Columbia [40-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (nmr) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
08/14/2002 45 ORDER by Judge Richard J. Leon : denying motion for leave to appeal Court's Order of 7/16/02 pursuant to Rule 5(a)(3) of the Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia [42-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE (N) (whb) (Entered: 08/15/2002)
10/24/2002 47 REQUEST by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for a telephonic conference with the Court (nmr) (Entered: 10/25/2002)
12/23/2002 48 NOTICE by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE of telephone conference with the court on 1/29 (bcs) (Entered: 12/24/2002)
03/07/2003 49 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola (N) (ldc) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
03/07/2003 50 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola : granting in part, denying in part motion for cooperation with discovery for Montgomery County [41-1], granting in part, denying in part motion for cooperation with discovery for District of Columbia [40-1], granting in part, denying in part motion to compel interrogatories and production of documents from defendants DC and Montgomery County [37-1] (N) (ldc) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
02/01/2004 51 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for status hearing held on dates May 15, 2002. Court Reporter: Gordon A. Slodysko (jf, ) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
02/12/2004 53 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED of Status Conference held on 11/2/01 before Judge Kessler. Court Reporter: Santa Theresa Zizzo (rje, ) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
02/18/2004 52 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for status hearing dates 7/16/02. (bcs, ) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
05/26/2004 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Burkett, William) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
06/09/2004 55 MOTION for Sanctions against the defendants for failure to disclose in accordance with Rule 37(b)(2) and rule 37(c)(1) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Exhibits 1 thru 23). Modified on 6/14/2004 (jf, ). (Entered: 06/10/2004)
06/09/2004 NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Bulky Exhibits 1 thru 23 which were inadvertently omitted from Document No. 55 have been attached to the filing and are being held in the Clerk's Office (Room 1225), public viewing is from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
06/15/2004 56 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 55 sanctions filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Burkett, William) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
06/21/2004 57 MOTION for Extension of Time in Which to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions by WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE. (nmw, ) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
06/23/2004 Paperless ORDER granting 57 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge John M. Facciola on 6/22/04. (SP, ) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
06/25/2004 MINUTE ORDER denying 55 Motion for Sanctions . Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 06/25/04. (lcrjl1, ) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
07/16/2004 58 RESPONSE to 55 Motion for Sanctions filed by DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHARLES A. MOOSE. (nmw, ) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
07/23/2004 59 REPLY to opposition by defendants of Montgomery County to plaintiff's motion for sanctions 55 filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
11/30/2004 60 NOTICE of Appearance by David A. Jackson on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Jackson, David) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
02/01/2005 61 Order advising plaintiff to respond or Court may deem matter as conceded re 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Responses due by 2/25/2005. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 1/31/05. (whb) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
02/24/2005 62 Memorandum in opposition to Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA's motion for summary judgment 54 filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
02/24/2005 63 RESPONSE to Court's Order dated January 27, 2005 61 filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
02/24/2005 64 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MOTION for Sanctions against the defendants of the District of Columbia and Montgomery County for failure to disclose in accordance with Rule 37(b)(2) and Rule 37(c)(1) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 thru 22)(jf, ) Modified on 3/1/2005 (jf, ). (Entered: 03/01/2005)
02/24/2005 NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Document No. 64 was entered in error as a duplicate filing of pleading No. 55 as per chambers. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
03/22/2005 65 REPLY to opposition to motion for sanctions 55 filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
03/29/2005 66 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Granting District of Columbia's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 3/28/05. (whb) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
04/28/2005 Notice of Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/13/2005 03:00 PM in Courtroom 7 before Judge Richard J. Leon. (whb) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
04/29/2005 67 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 66 Memorandum & Opinion filed on 03/29/05 by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. Filing fee $ 255, receipt number 134302. (jf, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
05/03/2005 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 67 Notice of Appeal (jf, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
05/13/2005 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard J. Leon : Status Conference held on 5/13/2005. (Court Reporter Cathy Crump-Miller Reporter.) (whb) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
06/03/2005 USCA Case Number 05-7073 for 67 Notice of Appeal filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE,. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
01/17/2006 68 MANDATE of USCA (certified copy)It is hereby ordered that the order to show cause be discharged; It is further ordered on the courts own motion that the appeal be dismissed;USCA#05-7073 (jsc) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
04/18/2006 69 ORDERED that the parties are to submit within 10 days a proposed scheduling order or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 4/14/06. (whb, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
04/19/2006 70 NOTICE of Appearance by Jimmy A. Bell on behalf of WILLIAM M. PIERCE (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
04/20/2006 71 Consent MOTION for Order Referring This Case for Mediation before a United States Magistrate Judge by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
04/20/2006 72 MOTION for Leave to File Late Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosures by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 -- Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosures)(Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
04/20/2006 73 MOTION for Order Setting Pretrial Conference and Trial Dates by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
04/24/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 71 Motion for Order referring this Case for Mediation before a Magistrate Judge, granting 72 Motion for Leave to Late-File Plaintiff's 26(a)(2) Expert Disclosures, and granting 73 Motion for a Status Hearing. It is further Ordered that a status hearing is scheduled for June 2, 2006, at 11:30am in Courtroom #14 before Judge Richard J. Leon and that the case is referred to a Magistrate Judge for mediation purposes only. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 4/24/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
04/24/2006 74 RULE 26a2 STATEMENT by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (jf, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
05/01/2006 75 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Order,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,, /Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Late Plaintiff's Rule 26(A)(2) Disclosures by MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS. (Robertson, Joann) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
05/01/2006 76 Memorandum in opposition to re 75 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Order,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,, /Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Late Plaintiff's Rule filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
05/05/2006 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Robinson for Mediation only. (jsc) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
05/08/2006 Set Hearing: Settlement Conference set for Wednesday, 5/31/2006 @ 09:30 AM in Room 2315-2nd Floor, E. Barrett Prettyman Bldg., before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. (EW) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
05/09/2006 77 REPLY to opposition to motion re 75 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Order,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,, /Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Late Plaintiff's Rule (Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration filed by MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS. (Robertson, Joann) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
05/16/2006 Notice of Rescheduled Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/2/06 is Rescheduled to 7/7/2006 10:30 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Richard J. Leon. (whb) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
05/23/2006 MINUTE ORDER denying 75 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 5/23/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
05/26/2006 78 Consent MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference by MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS. (Robertson, Joann) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
05/26/2006 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on 5/26/06 granting 78 Motion to Continue Settlement Conference to June 14, 2006. (EW) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
05/26/2006 Set/Reset Hearing: Settlement Conference reset for Wednesday, 6/14/2006 @ 02:00 PM in Room 2315-2nd Floor, E. Barrett Prettyman Building before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. (EW) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
06/14/2006 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson : Settlement Conference held on 6/14/2006;further settlement conference to be scheduled after status hearing on 7/7/06. (EW) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
07/06/2006 79 Joint MOTION to Vacate Joint Consent Motion to Vacate Status Conference and Settlement Conference by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
07/07/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 79 Motion to Vacate Status Conference and Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 7/7/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
07/30/2006 80 Consent MOTION to Dismiss Consent Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint as to All Defendants, Except Defendant Montgomery County, Maryland by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 07/30/2006)
08/07/2006 Notice of Hearing: Status Conference set for 9/22/06 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Richard J. Leon.(lcrjl1) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
08/07/2006 Notice of Re-Scheduled Hearing: Status Conference set for 10/2/06 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Richard J. Leon.(lcrjl1) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
08/07/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 80 Consent MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint as to All Defendants, Except Defendant Montgomery County, Maryland. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 8/7/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
10/02/2006 Notice of Hearing: Status Conference set for 10/16/2006 04:00 PM in Courtroom 18 before Judge Richard J. Leon.(lcrjl1) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
10/11/2006 81 Consent MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
10/12/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 81 Consent MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 10/12/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
CountGlockula
Member
My head hurts.
ByAnyMeans
Member
mine to
Davo
Member
Yeah what happened?
I'm sorry for taking so long to reply to this, but I've had a bunch of things going on.
None of the agencies or organizations that I contacted were interested in pursuing this matter. There were no substantial monetary damages so there was no interest from other attorney’s in pursuing the matter (The consensus was that it could be pursued, it could be won, but the end result would be a huge legal bill for me, and a light slap on the wrists for those involved.)
I decided not to make any formal complaints against the responding officers.
Now before I get flamed on this, let me explain my thoughts.
1. I was still attending the school and did not want to create an even more hostile environment which would hurt my chances at transfer. (It's already hard being a libertarian taking classes from communist/socialist/ultra left wing teachers.) If it had become widely known that I was involved in the Pro 2A movement It could have (and probably would have) caused some of my grades to be arbitrarily lowered.
I already have exactly two B's on my transcripts, both of which were earned in classes where I had spoken my mind about unpopular issues (14th/16th amendment in a history class, the socio-political commentary in a particular film work we studied in an 'intro to cinema' class). I have documentation which prove that I earned 92.5% + in both classes and the grade structure was 90+% for an A.
2. The officers who were on the scene were directly ordered to act as they did, they respected my rights up until the chief ordered them to violate them. Since the chief doesn’t appear in the police report, and no official mention is made of the roll he played in the deception there is a very good chance that any complaint would wind up being shunted onto the responding officers who actually are very nice guys who (I believe) were sincere in their desire to respect my 4th amendment rights.
They could have violated my rights at any time during the encounter, but did not do so until forced by the chief. They did not harass me in any way after the incident and I don’t feel that putting a note in their permanent record is the best way to make gun ownership accepted as a hobby/right that is socially acceptable at the school.
I hope I'm making sense with this... I didn't want to create an US v Them situation on campus which would create hardships for the gunnies who I was leaving behind when I graduated.
If there was a way to go after the chief directly, I wouldn't be opposed to it. but I don't want it to be scapegoated onto underlings.
3. I didn't want any official record to find its way into my scholastic file, I was (at the time) in the process of applying to Columbia... which is a VERY liberal school and I didn't want to be denied because I was a troublemaker, threat to the student body, antisocial etc etc etc. I know those are all B.S. reasons, but they don't have to give you a reason that you are not being accepted, 90%+ of applicants get rejection notices anyway. The battle for the 2a is a fight for hearts and minds that we can only win from within, and a degree from Columbia will get me right inside where I can make a real difference.
4. I don't know what the best possible outcome would be from filing a complaint, unless someone is willing to bring them to trial for violating my civil rights all that (as I understand it) can happen is a light slap on the wrist... and chances are it would be delivered to an undeserving party.
As far as suing them in small claims court, that really is not a feasible option. While I would love to have a gun that is bought from money attained in that tort, I really don’t' think it would go down that way. LEO unions have very good representation if I was to go after them directly in a civil matter.
Unless you can get a 900lbs gorilla in your corner it is almost impossible to take a LEO or state agency to court and win.
Some members have suggested that I pursue charges/civil torts against the lady who filed the false police report,
I know who she is, her name, home address, and personal information are on the un-edited copy of the police report that I have.
I won’t be doing that simply because I don't want to have ANY further interaction with her,
If I file a harassment suit against her, then she files one against me (it would be groundless but apparently she makes up a lot of stuff and hears/sees things that aren't there so why not a second false report?) And since she does nothing but commune with nature and live with cats (when she's not taking classes on B.S. at community college)... Its not like it will disrupt her life at all...
If I get tied up fighting false criminal accusations and miss work/pay fines/pay legal fees etc I loose out on opportunities which are critical at this time in my life. Since she isn't doing anything with her life, it just provides her with focus and an interesting diversion whereby she can go and save the world by preventing bad people like me from writing posts on the internet to ‘right wing wacko gun nuts’.
The same goes for restraining orders, If I get one what’s the point? She can file for one and get it (easy) in retaliation and then they come and take away my guns... there is no way to fight a restraining order in this state, if one is issued against you, they come and take your guns.. that’s just how it is.
And so what if I get a restraining order against her? she doesn't have any 'dangerous items' that they will take away from her. And Its not like I shop in the discount tofu bodega and communist peasant garb haberdasher that she frequents, so I will not likely see her again….. All I would do in bringing a tort against her is to continue to give her a reason to pursue spurious accusations against my character.
I’ve come to the realization that the best thing that I can do at this time, is to continue my education (I was accepted to Columbia University to study economics and will be moving to NYC to attend in two weeks) and become financially secure enough that I can pursue charges/damages independently if/when they occur again.
It does hurt my pride quite a bit to let what happened go unanswered, but I’ve put a lot of thought into this and I think the best course of action is for me to take this one on the chin.
So... that’s where its at
None of the agencies or organizations that I contacted were interested in pursuing this matter. There were no substantial monetary damages so there was no interest from other attorney’s in pursuing the matter (The consensus was that it could be pursued, it could be won, but the end result would be a huge legal bill for me, and a light slap on the wrists for those involved.)
I decided not to make any formal complaints against the responding officers.
Now before I get flamed on this, let me explain my thoughts.
1. I was still attending the school and did not want to create an even more hostile environment which would hurt my chances at transfer. (It's already hard being a libertarian taking classes from communist/socialist/ultra left wing teachers.) If it had become widely known that I was involved in the Pro 2A movement It could have (and probably would have) caused some of my grades to be arbitrarily lowered.
I already have exactly two B's on my transcripts, both of which were earned in classes where I had spoken my mind about unpopular issues (14th/16th amendment in a history class, the socio-political commentary in a particular film work we studied in an 'intro to cinema' class). I have documentation which prove that I earned 92.5% + in both classes and the grade structure was 90+% for an A.
2. The officers who were on the scene were directly ordered to act as they did, they respected my rights up until the chief ordered them to violate them. Since the chief doesn’t appear in the police report, and no official mention is made of the roll he played in the deception there is a very good chance that any complaint would wind up being shunted onto the responding officers who actually are very nice guys who (I believe) were sincere in their desire to respect my 4th amendment rights.
They could have violated my rights at any time during the encounter, but did not do so until forced by the chief. They did not harass me in any way after the incident and I don’t feel that putting a note in their permanent record is the best way to make gun ownership accepted as a hobby/right that is socially acceptable at the school.
I hope I'm making sense with this... I didn't want to create an US v Them situation on campus which would create hardships for the gunnies who I was leaving behind when I graduated.
If there was a way to go after the chief directly, I wouldn't be opposed to it. but I don't want it to be scapegoated onto underlings.
3. I didn't want any official record to find its way into my scholastic file, I was (at the time) in the process of applying to Columbia... which is a VERY liberal school and I didn't want to be denied because I was a troublemaker, threat to the student body, antisocial etc etc etc. I know those are all B.S. reasons, but they don't have to give you a reason that you are not being accepted, 90%+ of applicants get rejection notices anyway. The battle for the 2a is a fight for hearts and minds that we can only win from within, and a degree from Columbia will get me right inside where I can make a real difference.
4. I don't know what the best possible outcome would be from filing a complaint, unless someone is willing to bring them to trial for violating my civil rights all that (as I understand it) can happen is a light slap on the wrist... and chances are it would be delivered to an undeserving party.
As far as suing them in small claims court, that really is not a feasible option. While I would love to have a gun that is bought from money attained in that tort, I really don’t' think it would go down that way. LEO unions have very good representation if I was to go after them directly in a civil matter.
Unless you can get a 900lbs gorilla in your corner it is almost impossible to take a LEO or state agency to court and win.
Some members have suggested that I pursue charges/civil torts against the lady who filed the false police report,
I know who she is, her name, home address, and personal information are on the un-edited copy of the police report that I have.
I won’t be doing that simply because I don't want to have ANY further interaction with her,
If I file a harassment suit against her, then she files one against me (it would be groundless but apparently she makes up a lot of stuff and hears/sees things that aren't there so why not a second false report?) And since she does nothing but commune with nature and live with cats (when she's not taking classes on B.S. at community college)... Its not like it will disrupt her life at all...
If I get tied up fighting false criminal accusations and miss work/pay fines/pay legal fees etc I loose out on opportunities which are critical at this time in my life. Since she isn't doing anything with her life, it just provides her with focus and an interesting diversion whereby she can go and save the world by preventing bad people like me from writing posts on the internet to ‘right wing wacko gun nuts’.
The same goes for restraining orders, If I get one what’s the point? She can file for one and get it (easy) in retaliation and then they come and take away my guns... there is no way to fight a restraining order in this state, if one is issued against you, they come and take your guns.. that’s just how it is.
And so what if I get a restraining order against her? she doesn't have any 'dangerous items' that they will take away from her. And Its not like I shop in the discount tofu bodega and communist peasant garb haberdasher that she frequents, so I will not likely see her again….. All I would do in bringing a tort against her is to continue to give her a reason to pursue spurious accusations against my character.
I’ve come to the realization that the best thing that I can do at this time, is to continue my education (I was accepted to Columbia University to study economics and will be moving to NYC to attend in two weeks) and become financially secure enough that I can pursue charges/damages independently if/when they occur again.
It does hurt my pride quite a bit to let what happened go unanswered, but I’ve put a lot of thought into this and I think the best course of action is for me to take this one on the chin.
So... that’s where its at
TargetTerror
Member
Ajax, I'm currently in law school now, and living in MA I know exactly about all of the "extra" considerations that went into your decision. The more I deal with law and the legal system, the more I realize that it is less about "justice" and more about validating what the people in power want to do and believe. For all of the reasons that you mentioned, I agree that it is ultimately in your best interest to just let the whole episode blow over.
Congratulations and good luck at Columbia!
Congratulations and good luck at Columbia!
bogie
Member
Ajax, as you grow still older, you will discover that patience can be a virtue, and that karma will turn around and bite some folks really, really hard.
And if you're lucky, you'll have an opportunity to assist...
And if you're lucky, you'll have an opportunity to assist...
jaholder1971
Member
And Get The Heck Outta California Before They Educate Your Common Sense Outta You!!!!
- Status
