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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

18-671 - Goff v. Eppinger et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
18-671 - Goff v. Eppinger et al
March 30, 2018
PDF | More
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/30/18. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, denies plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (Related Docs. 1 and 2) (D,MA)
June 26, 2018
PDF | More
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 6/26/18. Plaintiff's claims against defendants Eppinger, Armbruster, and Davis are dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). His claims against all defendants under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, are also dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. The Clerk's Office shall forward the appropriate documents to the U.S. Marshals for service of process upon defendant Smith. (D,MA)
September 12, 2018
PDF | More
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/12/18. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, dismisses the § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and dismisses without prejudice the § 1983 First Amendment free exercise claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on ripeness grounds. With respect to the Fourteenth Amendment § 1983 claims, the Court dismisses the substantive due process claim pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, and dismisses without prejudice the procedural due process and equal protection claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on ripeness grounds. The Court therefore need not consider whether granting the permanent injunction is appropriate, and dismisses the action. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (Related Docs. 1 and 10) (D,MA)