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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

11-203 - Davis v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
11-203 - Davis v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al
October 16, 2012
PDF | More
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants are hereby ordered to file a letter responding to plaintiff's 56 October 4, 2012 letter, within 7 business days of this Order. SO ORDERED by Judge Allyne R. Ross, on 10/16/2012. C/mailed by Chambers. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
June 27, 2013
PDF | More
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants' 65 motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to the TSA's search for the name records, and denied as to the TSA's search for the flight records and the electronic storage records. The motion is granted with respect to the TSA's invocation of the Glomar response. The motion is denied as to the BOP, except with respect to the video surveillance recordings that are no longer in the agency's possession. The motion is granted as to the FBI. To the extent that defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied on this record, the denial is without prejudice. SO ORDERED by Judge Allyne R. Ross, on 6/27/2013. C/mailed by Chambers. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
November 20, 2013
PDF | More
OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's 84 Motion for Reconsideration is denied. SO ORDERED by Judge Allyne R. Ross, on 11/20/2013. C/mailed by Chambers to pro se Plaintiff. (See document for more details.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
August 14, 2014
PDF | More
OPINION & ORDER: Defendants previously moved for summary judgment. By Order dated 6/27/2013, the Court granted the motion with respect to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and granted it in part and denied it in part, without prejudice, with respect to the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") and Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). TSA and BOP have now renewed their motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff has failed to oppose their motion despite generous extensions from the court. For the reasons set forth herein, TSA's and DHS's 102 motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety, and they are dismissed from this suit. BOP's and DOJ's motion is granted in part and denied in part. The denial of BOP's and DOJ's motion in part is without prejudice, but they should be mindful of the need to sufficiently meet FOIA search requirements, and carefully explain how they have met those requirements, or why exemptions apply, before bringing another motion for summary judgment in this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 8/14/2014. C/mailed by Chambers to pro se Plaintiff. (Parties: Transportation Security Administration; and United States Department of Homeland Security terminated.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
November 10, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER denying 110 Motion to Compel: Defendants are respectfully requested to serve this Order upon Plaintiff at the address listed on the docket and file an affidavit of service by 11/17/2015. STATUS REPORT ORDER: As explained herein, the DOJ and BOP are directed to file a letter confirming that they have complied with the Court's 8/14/2014 Order by 11/24/2015. Plaintiff is permitted to respond by 12/28/2015 and, if necessary, the DOJ and BOP may submit a reply by 1/5/2016. (Status Report due by 1/5/2016.) Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 11/10/2015. (Weingarten, Richard)
April 6, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER granting 125 Motion for Discovery. As described therein, the BOP has demonstrated that it has fully complied with the three directives contained in the Court's August 14, 2014 Summary Judgment Order as: (1) the BOP conducted an adequate records search that identified the names, register numbers, and bedding assignments of all inmates housed in cell block 3 of MDC between March 1, 2009 and May 31, 2009; and (2) properly redacted the inmate names and register numbers as exempt pursuant to statutory exemption ยง 552(b)(7)(C) because this information is gathered for law enforcement purposes, implicate a significant privacy interest, and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate "that release of the information would shed light on the workings of government." Associated Press v. United States DOJ, 549 F.3d 62, 66 (2d Cir. 2008). A copy of the attached Order has been mailed to Plaintiff at the address reflected on the docket. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 4/6/2016. (Weingarten, Richard)