Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-831 - Brown et al v. City of Ferguson, Missouri, et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-831 - Brown et al v. City of Ferguson, Missouri, et al
July 16, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants City of Ferguson, Thomas Jackson, and Darren Wilson's Joint Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs Petition [ECF No.5] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Darren Wilson in Count I and Defendant Jackson in Count III be DISMISSED, with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Jackson in his official capacity in Count II and Defendant Wilson in his official capacity in Counts IV and VI be DISMISSED, without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs file an amended complaint within twenty days of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on Argument VI [ECF No. 6, pg. 21-23] will be held in abeyance pending further briefing by Plaintiffs and Defendants within twenty days of this order. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on July 16, 2015. (MCB)
August 18, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - In its Memorandum and Order on July 16, 2015, addressing Defendants Motion to Dismiss, the Court requested the parties submit further briefing on whether Plaintiffs have constitutional standing for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court asked the parties to specifically address the issue of federalism in regards to a federal court issuing an injunction against a state agency. Plaintiffs have failed to do as the Court requested. Simply restating the allegations contained in the complaint does not address the issue of whether those allegations meet the standards required for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs repeatedly reference the injury incurred by Plaintiffs in the loss of their son, but this does not address the continuing harm required for injunctive relief. Beyond the few citations provided in the opening pages of their brief, Plaintiffs provide no support for their assertions. The Court expects Plaintiffs to include citations to precedent when asserting an argument. The Court has previously determined the other issues in Defendants Motion to Dismiss; thus, Plaintiffs' brief should address solely the issues raised regarding injunctive relief. Plaintiffs shall file, within fourteen days of this order, an amended brief. As Defendants have already filed their brief and Plaintiffs have the opportunity to address Defendants' arguments with this ruling, Defendants will be given the opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs' amended brief within fourteen days of its filing. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on August 18, 2015. (MCB)
December 9, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) Plaintiffs' prayer for injunctive relief is dismissed for lack of Article III Standing, as their first claimed injury fails to allege an injury in fact required for injunctive relief. Additionally, for the same reasons, Plaintiffs cannot meet the Lyons Court's standard to seek injunctive relief through their second claimed injury. Finally, allegations of imminent harm from discriminatory police practices are insufficient to gain federal relief in the form of an injunction. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint which outlines and specifically delineates their claims of violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a separate numbered count within twenty days of the date of this order. The amended complaint shall not include any additional factual allegations. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 12/9/2015. (CBL)
August 23, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Protective Order [ECF No. 116] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on August 23, 2016. (MCB)
August 30, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis County and St. Louis County Police Department's Motion for In Camera Examination and Clarification of Protective Order [ECF No. 123] is GRANTED, in part. The Court will examine, in camera, photographs, exhibits, and documents to be produced to the Court to determine if photographs and exhibits should be protected from disclosure and if names should be redacted from the submitted documents. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 8/30/16. (EAB)
September 12, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis County and St. Louis County Police Department's Motion for In Camera Examination and Clarification of Protective Order [ECF No. 123] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that photographs shall be disclosed to counsel for the parties as indicated supra, under condition of the protective order, including Grand Jury Exhibits 15, 101, 102, 104, 105, and 106. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Grand Jury Exhibits 81, 88, and 90 will not be disclosed. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on September 12, 2016. (MCB)
October 20, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the St. Louis County Office of the Prosecuting Attorney make available for pick up, by the parties, redacted copies of police reports approved by the Court. The Court has determined certain names should be redacted because they have no relevance to the facts or issues in this matter and their names only appear incidentally in the report. After conducting an in camera review of the police reports, the Court ordered the St. Louis County Office of the Prosecuting Attorney to redact those names the Court found need not be disclosed. These reports are to be used by the parties under the terms of the protective order issued by this Court on June 6, 2016. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 10/20/2016. (CBL)
November 9, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Motion for Clarification of Admonition of the Court, Notice of Filing Comments, and Suggested Changes to Oath [ECF No. 110] is GRANTED, in part. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 11/9/2016. (CBL)
November 9, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Regarding Federal Documents [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 11/9/2016. (CBL)
December 15, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) During the telephone conference held on December 14, 2016, the Court directed Plaintiffs to file a motion regarding their argument additional attorneys should be permitted to view confidential information under the protective orders issued in this case. The Court has since reviewed the docket and determined this issue has already been conclusively decided by the Court. Because the Court has already determined this issue, there is no need for Plaintiffs to file an additional motion regarding this matter. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 12/15/2016. (CBL)
January 27, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Clarification of Court Order Dated January 4, 2017 [ECF No. 178] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 1/27/2017. (CBL)
June 20, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Michael Brown, Sr. and Lesley McSpadden's Petition for Approval of a Confidential Wrongful Death Settlement [ECF No. 200 -1] is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amounts recovered shall be distributed between Plaintiffs and their attorneys as outlined in the settlement agreement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the settlement agreement shall be considered a closed record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims against Defendants are DISMISSED, with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 6/20/2017. (CBL)