Case: Barham v. Ramsey

1:02-cv-02283 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Filed Date: Nov. 19, 2002

Closed Date: 2018

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The initial plaintiffs in this case were a group of twenty-two individuals who were arrested in September 2002 at a mass political demonstration in Washington, D.C. On November 19, 2002, they filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C §§ 1331 and 1343 against a number of municipal and federal defendants, including the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Chief of Police Charles Ramsey of the Metropolitan Police Department, the District of Co…

Represented by the Partnership for Civil Justice and the National Lawyers Guild Mass Defense Committee, the plaintiffs claimed they were falsely arrested and imprisoned without probable cause, depriving them of their rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. The plaintiffs further alleged the defendants--in violation of the Equal Protection Clause--processed and treated them differently than others arrested for minor offenses. Finally, the plaintiffs accused the arresting officials of negligence, as well as negligent supervision on the part of their supervisors. This case was one of a number filed or pending around that time against the Metropolitan Police Department and relating to its handling of mass demonstrations.

The plaintiffs amended their complaint three times to include a charge of deliberate indifference to constitutional rights against the arresting officers' supervisors and to propose a class of plaintiffs consisting of all persons--about 400 in total--who were arrested in Pershing Park September 27, 2002. In amending their complaint, the plaintiffs also added a new municipal defendant, Peter Newsham, Assistant Chief of Police, as well as a new federal defendant, Richard Murphy, who was the acting Commander of the Special Forces Branch of the U.S. Park Police.

The MPD, according to the complaint, had a practice of of deploying its Civil Disturbance Units for the purpose of disturbing and disrupting protests and demonstrations. And the CDU was successful doing so, though by means of allegedly unconstitutional tactics, resulting in false arrest and imprisonment. One tactic of note was the CDU's "box-in" technique, in which CDU officers (clad in full riot gear) trap individuals--protestors and civilians alike--by surrounding them on all sides, foreclosing any chance of escape, then arresting them. In this manner the CPD not only curtailed but also deterred the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.

The second aspect of the MPD's allegedly unconstitutional practices ensued after the arrests. The plaintiffs claimed the MPD disparately treated individuals arrested for minor offenses in connection with mass demonstrations. Those arrested simply for minor offenses (i.e., not in connection with any demonstration) were given the "post and trial" option, receiving quick release from jail in exchange for offering up collateral, and for which they also received a trial date for challenging the legality of their arrest. On the other hand, those individuals arrested for minor offenses in connection with demonstrations were released instead by "posting and forfeiting." In exchange for their release, they were instructed they had to forfeit their chance to challenge the legality of their arrest. As a result, they faced a longer confinement solely because they wished to challenge the legality of their arrest. This disparate treatment, the plaintiffs claimed, was the denial of equal protection under the law.

The plaintiffs alleged that the FBI used the mass arrests as a mass intelligence gathering operation, with the MPD soliciting--then providing the FBI--identification information from those it falsely arrested as a condition of their release. Thus the FBI compiled intelligence on political activists, their activities, and others who either associated with them or simply happened to be in their proximity.

The plaintiffs requested declaratory judgment that the MPD's practice of disrupting and preventing political protests without justification violated the plaintiffs' rights under First and Fourth Amendments and the plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction prohibiting such tactics. Among other forms of relief--including compensatory and punitive damages--the plaintiffs requested the Court mandate the MPD treat those arrested for minor offenses in connection with mass demonstrations just as it does those arrested simply for minor offenses, by enjoining it from (1) subjecting them to a harsher period of processing and confinement, (2) threatening or instituting longer periods of confinement for those who wish to challenge the legality of their arrest, and (3) offering them the "post and forfeit" option instead of the customary "post and trial" option. As to the federal defendants, the plaintiffs requested a permanent injunction barring the Department of Justice from accessing information relating to arrests at mass demonstrations made by local law enforcement authorities.

On September 24, 2003, the Court (Judge Emmet G. Sullivan) approved certification of the plaintiffs' proposed class, finding their circumstances of their arrest were virtually identical, all resulting from a single action in which the arrestees were treated as a single group by law enforcement.

The individual municipal defendants moved for dismissal on the grounds of qualified immunity. The court ruled Williams was entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest and excessive force claims, as was Ramsey with respect to the latter. 338 F. Supp. 2d 48, 52. Because there was an issue of fact regarding if Ramsey knew whether a dispersal order had been given before the plaintiffs at Pershing Park were arrested, the court determined qualified immunity for Ramsey for the false arrest claims was inappropriate. Id. at 62. The court also found Newsham was not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 57. Finally, the court held the MPD's failure to offer arrestees post and trial did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, explaining there was no evidence that the plaintiffs were treated differently than other groups of arrestees regarding the availability of the "post and trial" option. Id. at 70.

The federal defendants also moved for dismissal on the grounds of qualified immunity, arguing in addition that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims for injunctive relief. The Court denied the defendants' standing argument, finding the plaintiffs had shown injury, causation, and redressability--and explaining that the U.S. Park Police not only participated in the arrests at Pershing Park but also could have reasonably understood there was no probable cause for arresting every person in the park. 2007 WL 2007335 at * 6. The Court next determined that defendant Murphy was not entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged conduct--participating in a mass-arrest undertaken without probable cause--violated a clearly established constitutional right. Id. at *10. Defendant Murphy also challenged the § 1983 claim against him, arguing there was no evidence he was acting under color of state law at the time of the mass arrest. The court rejected this argument, too, finding evidence that state and federal officials acted in concert to carry out the mass arrest and noting Murphy and the Park Police acted with the encouragement and at the request of the MPD. Id. at *11. The Court also found the FBI's motion for summary judgment was premature because not enough discovery had been performed. Id. at *11.

In March 2010 the plaintiffs and municipal defendants filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement. The parties observed that, as a result of this and similar contemporaneous lawsuits, the Council of the District of Columbia had enacted the "First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004," which was specifically crafted to provide the relief plaintiffs sought, thus eliminating their need for equitable relief from the Court. No recurrence of "box in" mass arrests of protestors had taken place since the Act took effect. In addition, there had been favorable developments for the plaintiffs as a result of settlements from similar cases targeting the MPD's practices. See, Becker v. District of Columbia, Docket No. 1:01-cv-00811 (D.D.C. Apr. 13, 2001); Int'l Action Ctr. v. United States, Docket No. 1:01-cv-00072 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2001).

The plaintiffs noted their satisfaction at having implicitly received declaratory judgment from Judge Sullivan's opinions. E.g., 338 F. Supp. 2d 48, 58 (identifying the "'bright line rule' that 'where a group contains persons who have not been violent or obstructive, police may not mass arrest the demonstration as a group without fair warning or notice and the opportunity to come into compliance and disperse'"); 434 F. 3d 565, 575 (holding, under the Fourth Amendment, only "when compelling circumstances are present, the police may be justified in detaining an undifferentiated crowd of protestors, but only after providing a lawful order to disperse followed by a reasonable opportunity to comply with that order"). And by a previous order of Judge Sullivan, the class had received expungement of the arrest from their records.

The District agreed to allocate $8.25 million from its Judgment and Settlement Fund for the class settlement. Under the settlement, each enrolled member would receive $16,000, and attorneys fees and costs were also included, totaling about $2.5 million.

The District additionally agreed to allocate funds for implementing a document management system to prevent evidence loss or destruction, which apparently had occurred during this case. Under its new system, the agreement stipulated, the MPD would preserve and index records relating to mass demonstrations and protests, and the MPD would report to plaintiffs' representatives and the Court every six months during the three-year enforcement period of three years, during which time the Court retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance.

The Court approved the parties' motion on September 22, 2010. Following the fairness hearing, in September 2010 the parties submitted--and the court approved--the final settlement agreement. Over the next several year, the parties engaged in enforcement activities, provided status reports, and moved for attorneys fees. Negotiations between the plaintiffs and the federal defendants continued.

On May 10, 2015, the plaintiffs and the federal defendants jointly moved for preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement. The following day the court granted the motion. Under the terms of the agreement, the defendants were required to pay a class-wide monetary settlement totaling $2,208,000 and to changes the U.S. Park Police policies and practices regarding mass arrest. The agreement was set to expire three years after the latest occurrence of either the grant of final approval, the disposition of all appeals, or the denial or all appeals. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.

On July 1, 2015, the parties moved for final approval of the agreement following the fairness hearing. After the court granted final approval on July 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal as to the defendant FBI. The court dismissed the FBI as a defendant on July 28, 2015. As of July 10, 2018, there is no indication of non-compliance following final approval. As such the settlement terminated on July 8, 2018, three years after the grant of final approval. The case is presumably closed.

	Document
1:02-cv-02283	Docket [PACER]	Aug. 7, 2015	Aug. 7, 2015 Docket
1 1:02-cv-02283	Complaint	Nov. 19, 2002	Nov. 19, 2002 Complaint
3 1:02-cv-02283	Motion for Class Certification and Notice; Memo in Support	Feb. 7, 2003	Feb. 7, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief
16 1:02-cv-02283	First Amended Complaint	Feb. 7, 2003	Feb. 7, 2003 Complaint
24 1:02-cv-02283	District Defendants' Motion to Consolidate and for Enlargements of Time to Respond to the Amended Complaint and the Motion for Class Certification	April 8, 2003	April 8, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief
32 1:02-cv-02283	Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment; Federal Defendants' Statement of Material Facts as to which there is No Genuine Issue; Memo in Support	April 25, 2003	April 25, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief
56 1:02-cv-02283	Memo Opinion and Order Granting Motion to Certify Class and Denying Motion to Consolidate Cases	Sept. 24, 2003	Sept. 24, 2003 Order/Opinion
59 1:02-cv-02283	Second Amended Complaint	Oct. 3, 2003	Oct. 3, 2003 Complaint
67 1:02-cv-02283	Motion of Defendants Chief Charles H. Ramsey and Mayor Anthony A. Williams to Dismiss the Complaint or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment	Oct. 15, 2003	Oct. 15, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief
79 1:02-cv-02283	Motion of Defendants District of Columbia, Chief Charles H. Ramsey, and Mayor Anthony A. Williams, For Consolidation of Related Cases	Nov. 24, 2003	Nov. 24, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against JOHN ASHCROFT, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, GALE A. NORTON, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ANTHONY WILLIAMS (Filing fee $ 150.), filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN .(cdw, ) (Entered: 11/22/2002)	Nov. 19, 2002	Nov. 19, 2002 RECAP
2	NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN . Case related to Case No. 01-72 International Action Center, et al v. USA, et al. (cdw, ) (Entered: 11/22/2002)	Nov. 19, 2002	Nov. 19, 2002 PACER
	SUMMONS Not Issued as to JOHN ASHCROFT ; D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT ; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ; GALE A. NORTON ; CHARLES H. RAMSEY ; UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ; ANTHONY WILLIAMS (cdw, )	Nov. 19, 2002	Nov. 19, 2002 PACER
	SUMMONS (3) Issued as to JOHN ASHCROFT ; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. Attorney (cdw, )	Nov. 20, 2002	Nov. 20, 2002 PACER
	Case reassigned to Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. Judge Gladys Kessler no longer assigned to the case. (cdw, )	Nov. 20, 2002	Nov. 20, 2002 PACER
	Summons (6) Issued as to D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS . (cdw, )	Nov. 20, 2002	Nov. 20, 2002 PACER
3	MOTION to Certify Class and Notice, with Memorandum in Support by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 02/07/2003)	Feb. 7, 2003	Feb. 7, 2003 PACER
16	AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by DEVON YATES, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN.(td, ) (Entered: 03/02/2003)	Feb. 7, 2003	Feb. 7, 2003 PACER
4	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. (Wolfe, Zachary) Modified on 2/12/2003 (td, ). Modified on 2/12/2003 (td, ). (Entered: 02/12/2003)	Feb. 12, 2003	Feb. 12, 2003 RECAP
5	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA served on 2/7/2003, answer due 4/8/2003. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 02/12/2003) 237 View on PACER 289 View on PACER	Feb. 12, 2003	Feb. 12, 2003 RECAP
6	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)	Feb. 12, 2003	Feb. 12, 2003 RECAP
7	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to US Attorney served on 2/7/2003, answer due 4/8/2003. (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)	Feb. 12, 2003	Feb. 12, 2003 RECAP
8	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Individual Capacity, served on 2/7/2003, answer due 2/27/2003. (td, ) Modified on 2/14/2003 (td, ). (Entered: 02/14/2003)	Feb. 12, 2003	Feb. 12, 2003 PACER
9	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Official Capacity, served on 2/7/2003, answer due 2/27/2003. (td, ) Modified on 2/14/2003 (td, ). Modified on 2/14/2003 (td, ). (Entered: 02/14/2003)	Feb. 12, 2003	Feb. 12, 2003 PACER
10	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to GALE A. NORTON served on 2/7/2003, answer due 4/8/2003. (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)	Feb. 12, 2003	Feb. 12, 2003 RECAP
11	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT served on 2/7/2003, answer due 2/27/2003 (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)	Feb. 12, 2003	Feb. 12, 2003 PACER
12	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. CHARLES H. RAMSEY served on 2/7/2003, answer due 2/27/2003 (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)	Feb. 12, 2003	Feb. 12, 2003 PACER
13	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. CHARLES H. RAMSEY,Individual Capacity served on 2/7/2003, answer due 2/27/2003 (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)	Feb. 12, 2003	Feb. 12, 2003 PACER
14	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA served on 2/7/2003, answer due 2/27/2003 (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)	Feb. 12, 2003	Feb. 12, 2003 PACER
15	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Lerner, Jacques) (Entered: 02/27/2003)	Feb. 27, 2003	Feb. 27, 2003 PACER
17	ORDER granting 15 Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 3/9/03. (Entered: 03/09/2003)	March 9, 2003	March 9, 2003 PACER
18	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/12/2003)	March 12, 2003	March 12, 2003 PACER
19	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 3 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice, with Memorandum in Support by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/12/2003)	March 12, 2003	March 12, 2003 PACER
20	Memorandum in opposition to motion re 3,plaintiffs' motion to certify the class and for notice, filed by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/28/2003)	March 28, 2003	March 28, 2003 PACER
21	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to respond to the Complaint by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/04/2003)	April 4, 2003	April 4, 2003 PACER
22	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 Memorandum in Opposition by Federal Defendants to Motion for Class Certification by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 04/07/2003)	April 7, 2003	April 7, 2003 PACER
23	ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 19 Federal Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, granting 21 Federal Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to, granting 22 Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 4/7/03. (Entered: 04/07/2003)	April 7, 2003	April 7, 2003 PACER
24	MOTION to Consolidate Cases and for Enlargements of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint and to Motion for Class Certification by D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Lerner, Jacques) (Entered: 04/08/2003)	April 8, 2003	April 8, 2003 PACER
25	NOTICE of Appearance by Edith Margeurita Shine on behalf of JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Shine, Edith) (Entered: 04/09/2003)	April 9, 2003	April 9, 2003 PACER
	Case Reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Judge Ricardo M. Urbina no longer assigned to the case. (clv, )	April 9, 2003	April 9, 2003 PACER
26	REPLY in support of motion re 3 filed by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 04/14/2003)	April 14, 2003	April 14, 2003 PACER
27	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/17/2003)	April 17, 2003	April 17, 2003 PACER
28	Memorandum in opposition to motion re 24 consolidating cases filed by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/21/2003)	April 21, 2003	April 21, 2003 PACER
29	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 24 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and for Enlargements of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint and to Motion for Class Certification by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 04/22/2003)	April 22, 2003	April 22, 2003 PACER
30	NOTICE by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 04/23/2003)	April 23, 2003	April 23, 2003 RECAP
31	Memorandum in opposition to motion re 24 to Consolidate filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 04/23/2003)	April 23, 2003	April 23, 2003 PACER
	ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc, 29 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 24 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and for Enlargements of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint and to Motion for Class Certification. Response due by 4/23/2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 24, 2003. (lcegs2)	April 24, 2003	April 24, 2003 PACER
32	MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Declaration# 3 Declaration)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/25/2003)	April 25, 2003	April 25, 2003 PACER
	ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 27 Federal Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 7, 2003. (GK, )	May 7, 2003	May 7, 2003 PACER
33	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 05/08/2003)	May 8, 2003	May 8, 2003 PACER

Case: Barham v. Ramsey

1:02-cv-02283 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details