Case: Heyer v. United States Bureau of Prisons

5:11-ct-03118 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

Filed Date: June 20, 2011

Closed Date: April 26, 2022

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case is about access to communication and auxiliary aids for deaf people in federal prison. On June 20, 2011, two deaf prisoners filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Represented by private counsel and the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit under Bivens and claimed violations of the Rehabilitation Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged violations of their Fifth Amendment due process rights, First Amendment Freedom of Speech, and First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants refused to provide them with effective communication and auxiliary aids necessary to accommodate their disability. The discriminatory conduct deprived the plaintiffs of their ability to receive adequate and informed medical treatment, participate in institutional disciplinary proceedings, effectively take part in any rehabilitative, educational, or religious programs, or communicate with those within and outside the institution. The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief.

On April 11, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On June 22, 2011, the case was transferred to Judge James C. Dever III, with a revised case number of 5:11-ct-3118. The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The plaintiffs also filed for summary judgment on count two of their amended complaint.

On March 11, 2013, Judge Dever denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on count two, granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, and denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Judge Dever dismissed count one under the Rehabilitation Act for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Judge Dever dismissed count five under the Fifth Amendment for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Eight of the plaintiffs' claims survived. 2013 WL 943406 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2013).

Discovery was contested and the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the production of documents. On September 12, 2014, the district court issued an ordering denying the plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of documents from the defendants. 2014 WL 4545946 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 2014).

On March 31, 2015, the Court granted in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and dismissed as moot the remaining counts of the amended complaint. 2015 WL 1470877 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2015). The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 27, 2015. The case went to the Fourth Circuit as Appeal No. 15-6826.

On November 5, 2015, after the plaintiffs submitted their appellate brief and while the defendants’ response brief was pending, one of the two plaintiffs filed a notice informing the Fourth Circuit that he had “some limited ability to hear and understand speech in certain contexts.” See Notice, Appeal No. 15-6826, at Doc. 31. The Fourth Circuit subsequently dismissed his appeal because he was determined not to be deaf. 849 F.3d 202 n.1. The case continued with the other plaintiff.

On February 23, 2017, the Fourth Circuit ruled on the appeal of the District Court's grant of summary judgment, affirming it in part, vacating it in part, and remanding for further judgment. 849 F.3d 202. The Court of Appeals found that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's medical needs by failing to provide him with an ASL interpreter for medical appointments, particularly when he was suffering from seizures as a result of inadequate medical care. The Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiff had adequately shown substantial risk of serious harm resulting from the defendant's actions. The court also reversed the summary judgment on plaintiff's First Amendment claims, finding that defendant's security complaints regarding the requested videophone were exaggerated, and that defendant substantially interfered with plaintiff's ability to communicate outside of the prison walls. The Fourth Circuit also found that the supplies given to the plaintiff to alert him of emergencies were inadequate.

The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge James E. Gates for a court-hosted settlement conference on May 18, 2017. Defendants moved for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction, or in the alternative, judgment on the pleadings, on September 29, 2017. After reaching a partial settlement, the parties moved jointly to dismiss the case in part with prejudice on November 2, 2017. Under this partial settlement, the defendants agreed to provide the plaintiff with several accommodations, including in-person ASL interpreter services and calls through video relay service that facilitates communication with non-ASL speakers. The court granted this motion on November 3. This limited the litigation to the plaintiff's First Amendment claim regarding access to a videophone for communication.

A bench trial was held before Judge Dever from November 6-7, 2017. Judge Dever denied the defendant's motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for judgment on the pleadings on September 12, 2018. On February 12, 2019, the court entered judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the BOP's failure to install and provide the requested videophone equipment violated the First Amendment.

The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on March 12, 2019, requesting that the court alter the judgment. The court subsequently denied this motion on June 21, 2019. The plaintiff then appealed both orders to the Fourth Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit (Circuit Judges Henry F. Floyd, Motz, Diana Gribbon Motz, and Barbara Milano Keenan) agreed with the plaintiff and reversed the district court’s judgment on January 13, 2021. 984 F.3d 347. It remanded the case to the district court for judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Though the Fourth Circuit agreed with the defendants that the ban on videophone for communication bore a rational connection to the defendants' interests in prison safety, rehabilitation of the plaintiff, and protection of the public, it found that other factors weighed in the plaintiff’s favor. First, the plaintiff lacked alternative means to communicate with other deaf individuals. The Fourth Circuit found that the district court erroneously concluded that video relay service was an alternative means because video relay service only permitted communication with non-deaf individuals. Here, the plaintiff was asserting an interest in communicating with the deaf community—an interest video relay service couldn’t fulfill. Second, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court overlooked the substantial evidence that the defendants already have resource-efficient means of managing the risks of videophone calls in evaluating the hypothetical risks of these calls. Finally, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court did not explain why existing safeguards for videophone calls did not mitigate the risks of the calls to a de minimis level. It noted that the district court improperly focused on the nature of the risks of videophones rather than the likelihood of the risks materializing. The Fourth Circuit issued a mandate to the district court on March 8, 2021.

After the plaintiff's victory in the Fourth Circuit, the parties returned to litigation before a DOJ administrative law judge (ALJ). This litigation had been going on parallel to the district court case: the plaintiff filed an administrative complaint on March 3, 2017, alleging that the defendants' failure to provide access to video calls violated the Rehabilitation Act. After the Fourth Circuit's decision, the ALJ found that the defendants had violated the Rehabilitation Act, and the remaining administrative litigation centered around the issue of whether, and to what extent, the plaintiff was entitled to point-to-point video technology to communicate outside of prison walls. Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to videophone access in particular, while defendants argued that the Fourth Circuit’s decision did not explicitly find that the First Amendment required the plaintiff to have videophone access, and that it explicitly stated that his First Amendment rights did not provide a justification for allowing videophone calls to his hearing brother.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in April 2021, and a motion in the alternative to stay proceedings, arguing that the plaintiff already enjoyed legally sufficient access to the phone program that was comparable to that enjoyed by hearing inmates/detainees. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the defendants’ denial of access to point-to-point videophone calls violated his First Amendment rights, and that this holding “necessitate[d]” a finding here that the BOP also violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. ALJ Teresa Wallbaum agreed with the plaintiff, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss and granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on May 21, 2021. She found there were no material facts in dispute that might preclude a decision on summary judgment, as the relevant facts had been “extensively litigated” in the Fourth Circuit. She also held that defendants could not avoid liability by establishing that providing the plaintiff with point-to-point videophone access would constitute a fundamental alteration to the phone program and/or create undue burdens.

The ALJ issued her Recommended Decision in the case on July 20, 2021, which recommended an order that defendants, within thirty days of the date of final Agency action, ensure that a fully operational videophone or its functional equivalent was available for use by the plaintiff at the detention facility. She added a caveat that nothing in the order “shall be interpreted to limit or abridge the authority of BOP to implement reasonable security measure[s] or to limit access to the videophone in the same manner that access of all inmates may be limited under the inmate telephone program.”

On August 4, 2021, defendants submitted exceptions to the Recommended Decision, arguing that the DOJ should ignore the facts drawn from the Fourth Circuit and either order the record to be supplemented or remand the case to the ALJ for further development of the record. Defendants argued that stronger facts needed to be proven regarding how skilled the plaintiff’s brother was in communicating in ASL, and also that the record did not support the ALJ’s finding that complainant “ha[d] deaf friends or family with which he wishe[d] to communicate.” Defendants also argued that the ALJ erred in her conclusions of law regarding denial of a stay, issue preclusion, the summary judgment analysis standard, and the determination that defendants violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs filed a reply contesting these arguments, and the case went to a Complaint Adjudication Officer.

Meanwhile, on January 26, 2022, the district court entered judgement in favor of the plaintiff on the eighth count of the amended complaint (First Amendment claim). The court also ordered the BOP to provide the plaintiff with access to a videophone, enabling him to communicate with deaf people outside of the institution, and to ensure the videophone has a sufficient high-speed internet connection. These requirements were to remain in effect for as long as the plaintiff was in BOP custody, including if the plaintiff leaves and returns.

Back at the DOJ, in a Final Decision written by Complaint Adjudication Officer C. Douglas Kern on February 25, 2022, the DOJ found the ALJ’s recommendation reasonable. It found that plaintiff established a prima facie case under Section 504, and defendants did not establish an affirmative defense. However, the DOJ provided some adjustments and clarifications to the ruling. First, the DOJ agreed with the ALJ that defendants must provide the plaintiff with point-to-point videophone access, but that defendants could also provide a functionally equivalent accommodation. However, any form of mediated telecommunication that prevented the plaintiff and another ASL user from communicating directly in ASL would not be a functional equivalent. Second, it was unclear what the ALJ determined as to whether the plaintiff should be allowed to make videophone calls to his brother in ASL. Defendants argued that it would thus be reasonable to limit this right to members of the Deaf community, not his hearing brother. However, nothing in the record provided a basis for requiring the plaintiff to communicate with his brother through a less effective method simply because his brother was not deaf. The decision additionally noted that nothing in the decision interfered with the defendants’ ability to exercise its sound correctional judgment in determining whether to allow the plaintiff to call any particular individual, including his brother – but those determinations should be made under the same bases that defendants use to decide whether to allow hearing inmates/detainees to call any particular person on any device.

Regarding the remedy, the DOJ found that it had received no dispositive evidence that defendants had provided the plaintiff with point-to-point videophone access to date. Thus, within thirty days of the Final Decision, the defendants were ordered to provide the plaintiff with fully operational videophone access that allowed him to make direct, point-to-point videophone calls to other ASL users from the facility in which he was housed, and the defendants must provide the Complaint Adjudication Office with a report on the status of the remedy within sixty days of its receipt of the Final Decision.

In the district court, on April 20, 2022, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for attorney fees and costs, which Judge Dever granted on April 26, 2022. The BOP was ordered to pay $75,000. The case is now closed.

	Document
5:11-ct-03118	Docket [PACER]	March 8, 2021	March 8, 2021 Docket
1 5:11-cv-00318	Complaint	June 20, 2011	June 20, 2011 Complaint
24 5:11-ct-03118	Verified First Amended Complaint	April 11, 2012	April 11, 2012 Complaint
46 5:11-ct-03118	Order	March 11, 2013	March 11, 2013 Order/Opinion 2013 WL 943406
118 5:11-ct-03118	Order	Sept. 12, 2014	Sept. 12, 2014 Order/Opinion 2014 WL 4545946
142 5:11-ct-03118	Order	March 31, 2015	March 31, 2015 Order/Opinion 2015 WL 1470877
151 5:11-ct-03118	Order	Jan. 4, 2016	Jan. 4, 2016 Order/Opinion
67 5:11-ct-03118 15-6826	Opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	Feb. 23, 2017	Feb. 23, 2017 Order/Opinion 849 F.3d 202
181-1 5:11-ct-03118	Partial Settlement Agreement	Nov. 2, 2017	Nov. 2, 2017 Settlement Agreement
205 5:11-ct-03118	Order	Feb. 12, 2019	Feb. 12, 2019 Order/Opinion

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0417-1653669.), filed by Thomas Heyer, Robert Paul Boyd. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet with attachment, # 2 summons for issuance, # 3 ummons for issuance, # 4 ummons for issuance, # 5 ummons for issuance, # 6 ummons for issuance) (Riemann, Neil) (Entered: 06/20/2011) 1 Civil Cover Sheet with attachment View on PACER 2 summons for issuance View on PACER 3 ummons for issuance View on PACER 4 ummons for issuance View on PACER 5 ummons for issuance View on PACER 6 ummons for issuance View on PACER	June 20, 2011	June 20, 2011 RECAP
2	NOTICE of Appearance by Philip J. Fornaci on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Fornaci, Philip) (Entered: 06/21/2011)	June 21, 2011	June 21, 2011 RECAP
3	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE - All future pleadings should reflect the revised case number of: 5:11-CT-3118-D. Signed by Julie Richards, Chief Deputy Clerk for Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court on 6/22/11. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/22/2011)	June 22, 2011	June 22, 2011 PACER
	Notice of Correction	June 22, 2011	June 22, 2011 PACER
	NOTICE OF CORRECTION re: 1 Complaint. Since this action alleges claims regarding conditions of confinement the nature of suit has been changed to 555 and the cause of action has been changed to 28:1331. (Blankenship, T.)	June 22, 2011	June 22, 2011 PACER
4	NOTICE of Appearance by Ian S. Hoffman on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 07/29/2011)	July 29, 2011	July 29, 2011 PACER
5	ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CONTINUE MANAGEMENT OF CASE - Plaintiff's claims are not clearly frivolous. Accordingly, the clerk is DIRECTED to continue management of the action. Signed by US District Judge James C. Dever III on 8/3/2011. (Taylor, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)	Aug. 3, 2011	Aug. 3, 2011 PACER
6	Summons Issued as to: Ike Eichenlaub, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, and United States Bureau of Prisons. (Taylor, B.) (Entered: 08/04/2011)	Aug. 4, 2011	Aug. 4, 2011 PACER
7	NOTICE of Appearance by Carolyn A. Pearce on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Pearce, Carolyn) (Entered: 09/28/2011)	Sept. 28, 2011	Sept. 28, 2011 PACER
8	AFFIDAVIT of Service for summons and complaint served on all defendants on various dates, filed by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proof for Eichenlaub, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Proof for BoP and Kane, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Proof for Johns, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Proof for Revell, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Proof for AG, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Proof for US Atty) (Riemann, Neil) (Entered: 10/17/2011)	Oct. 17, 2011	Oct. 17, 2011 PACER
9	AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Ike Eichenlaub, Thomas Kane, U.S. Bureau of Prisons on October 18, 2011 and October 20, 2011, filed by Robert Paul Boyd and Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proof for Ike Eichenlaub, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Proof for Bureau of Prisons, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Proof for Thomas Kane) (Pearce, Carolyn) (Entered: 10/25/2011)	Oct. 25, 2011	Oct. 25, 2011 PACER
10	NOTICE of Change of Address by Neil A. Riemann (Riemann, Neil) (Entered: 11/09/2011)	Nov. 9, 2011	Nov. 9, 2011 PACER
11	NOTICE of Appearance by Seth Morgan Wood on behalf of Ike Eichenlaub, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell and United States Bureau of Prisons. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 12/12/2011)	Dec. 12, 2011	Dec. 12, 2011 PACER
12	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1 Complaint, by Ike Eichenlaub, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell and United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 12/12/2011)	Dec. 12, 2011	Dec. 12, 2011 PACER
13	ORDER granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 1 Complaint; Responses due by 1/11/2012. Signed by Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court on 12/13/2011. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 12/13/2011)	Dec. 13, 2011	Dec. 13, 2011 PACER
14	MOTION to Dismiss by Ike Eichenlaub, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 01/11/2012)	Jan. 11, 2012	Jan. 11, 2012 PACER
15	Memorandum in Support re 14 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Ike Eichenlaub, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (A) Declaration of Lynnell Cox with Attachments 1 through 5, # 2 Exhibit (B) Declaration of Mina Raskin, # 3 Exhibit (C) Declaration of Nicole C. Weaver) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 01/11/2012)	Jan. 11, 2012	Jan. 11, 2012 PACER
16	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION to Dismiss by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 01/30/2012)	Jan. 30, 2012	Jan. 30, 2012 PACER
17	ORDER - GRANTING 16 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Plaintiff's response due by 3/7/2012. Signed by Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court on 2/1/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 02/01/2012)	Feb. 1, 2012	Feb. 1, 2012 PACER
18	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION to Dismiss by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 02/20/2012)	Feb. 20, 2012	Feb. 20, 2012 PACER
19	ORDER - GRANTING 18 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Plaintiff's response due by 3/28/2012. Signed by Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court on 2/21/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 02/21/2012)	Feb. 21, 2012	Feb. 21, 2012 PACER
20	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION to Dismiss by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 03/23/2012)	March 23, 2012	March 23, 2012 PACER
21	ORDER - GRANTING 20 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' response due by 4/11/2012. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 3/26/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/26/2012)	March 26, 2012	March 26, 2012 PACER
22	MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Proposed First Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 04/04/2012)	April 4, 2012	April 4, 2012 PACER
	Notice of Deficiency	April 4, 2012	April 4, 2012 PACER
	NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re: 22 Motion for Leave to File: IN FUTURE FILINGS counsel is to refer to the WESTERN DIVISION in the case caption on all documents filed in this case. There is not a Raleigh division. (Fogle, L.)	April 4, 2012	April 4, 2012 PACER
	Motion Submitted	April 6, 2012	April 6, 2012 PACER
	Motion Submitted to Staff Counsel III: 22 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. (Indig, A.)	April 6, 2012	April 6, 2012 PACER
23	ORDER - GRANTING 22 Motion for Leave to File and directs plaintiffs to file their proposed amended complaint on or before April 17, 2012, and to present summonses to the Clerk for issuance. DENYING as moot 14 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 4/10/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 04/10/2012)	April 10, 2012	April 10, 2012 PACER
24	***REFER TO DE # 25 FOR CORRECTED SUMMONS AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Thomas Heyer, Robert Paul Boyd. (Attachments: # 1 Summons for Issuance) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 04/11/2012) 1 Summons for Issuance View on PACER	April 11, 2012	April 11, 2012 Clearinghouse
	Notice of Deficiency	April 12, 2012	April 12, 2012 PACER
	NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re: 24 Amended Complaint: Failure to Flatten Form (Summons for Issuance). The court prefers flattened pdf fillable forms, as stated in Section B(3) of the Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual. Counsel is directed to re-file the summons as a "Flattened Document." (Fogle, L.)	April 12, 2012	April 12, 2012 PACER
25	***CORRECTED SUMMONS - AMENDED DOCUMENT by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. Summons for Issuance. (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 04/12/2012)	April 12, 2012	April 12, 2012 PACER
26	Summons Issued as to Eric H. Holder, Jr, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 04/12/2012)	April 12, 2012	April 12, 2012 PACER
27	NOTICE of Appearance by Seth Morgan Wood on behalf of Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 04/23/2012)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
28	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 24 Amended Complaint by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 04/23/2012)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
29	ORDER - GRANTING 28 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint up to and including 6/11/2012. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 4/24/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 04/24/2012)	April 24, 2012	April 24, 2012 PACER
30	Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Response as to 24 Amended Complaint (Unopposed) by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 06/06/2012)	June 6, 2012	June 6, 2012 PACER
31	ORDER - GRANTING 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as to 24 Amended Complaint (Unopposed). Responses due by 6/25/2012. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 6/7/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/07/2012)	June 7, 2012	June 7, 2012 PACER
32	MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION for Summary Judgment by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 06/25/2012)	June 25, 2012	June 25, 2012 PACER

Case: Heyer v. United States Bureau of Prisons

5:11-ct-03118 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details