Myers v. US Department of Justice

D. Massachusetts

Myers v. US Department of Justice

DecidedDecember 31, 2018

Docket1:18-cv-12569

StatusUnknown

This text of Myers v. US Department of Justice (Myers v. US Department of Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Myers v. US Department of Justice, (D. Mass. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) TODD L. MYERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. ) 18-12569-ADB v. ) ) US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER ON PEND ING MOTIONS

BURROUGHS, D.J.

On December 17, 2018, Todd L. Myers (“Myers”), filed a self-prepared complaint naming as defendants the United States Department of Justice and the FBI. Myers paid the $400 filing fee and summons issued at that time. The docket indicates that returns of service [ECF Nos. 10, 11] were filed by Myers on December 18, 2018. Through this action, Myers seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that would, among other things, compel the Department of Justice and the FBI to produce copies of documents and communications that he believes are necessary to defend a pending state-court action. Now pending before the Court are plaintiff’s motions [ECF Nos. 5, 7] to submit evidence and motion [ECF No. 12] for summary judgment. Myers seeks expedited consideration. To the extent Myers seeks to submit evidence, the rules of discovery govern and this case has not reached that stage in litigation. To the extent Myers seeks summary judgment at this early stage of the proceedings, the motion is denied. Although district courts “have the power to grant summary judgment sua sponte,” Berkovitz v. Home Box Office, Inc., 89 F.3d 24, 29 (1st

1 Cir. 1996), before doing so, the court, among other things, must give “the targeted party” appropriate notice and a chance to present its evidence on the essential elements of the claim. Id.; accord Wells Real Estate Inv. Trust II, Inc. v. Chardon/Hato Rey P’ship, S.E., 615 F.3d 45, 51 (1st Cir. 2010).

Once answers are filed by the defendants, a discovery order will be entered and a deadline for the filing of dispositive motions will be set. Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motions to submit evidence (ECF Nos. 5, 7) are denied. 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 12) is denied as premature. SO ORDERED. /s/ Allison D. Burroughs Allison D. Burroughs United States District Judge Dated: December 31, 2018

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) TODD L. MYERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. ) 18-12569-ADB v. ) ) US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER ON PEND ING MOTIONS

BURROUGHS, D.J.

On December 17, 2018, Todd L. Myers (“Myers”), filed a self-prepared complaint naming as defendants the United States Department of Justice and the FBI. Myers paid the $400 filing fee and summons issued at that time. The docket indicates that returns of service [ECF Nos. 10, 11] were filed by Myers on December 18, 2018. Through this action, Myers seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that would, among other things, compel the Department of Justice and the FBI to produce copies of documents and communications that he believes are necessary to defend a pending state-court action. Now pending before the Court are plaintiff’s motions [ECF Nos. 5, 7] to submit evidence and motion [ECF No. 12] for summary judgment. Myers seeks expedited consideration. To the extent Myers seeks to submit evidence, the rules of discovery govern and this case has not reached that stage in litigation. To the extent Myers seeks summary judgment at this early stage of the proceedings, the motion is denied. Although district courts “have the power to grant summary judgment sua sponte,” Berkovitz v. Home Box Office, Inc., 89 F.3d 24, 29 (1st

1 Cir. 1996), before doing so, the court, among other things, must give “the targeted party” appropriate notice and a chance to present its evidence on the essential elements of the claim. Id.; accord Wells Real Estate Inv. Trust II, Inc. v. Chardon/Hato Rey P’ship, S.E., 615 F.3d 45, 51 (1st Cir. 2010).

Once answers are filed by the defendants, a discovery order will be entered and a deadline for the filing of dispositive motions will be set. Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motions to submit evidence (ECF Nos. 5, 7) are denied. 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 12) is denied as premature. SO ORDERED. /s/ Allison D. Burroughs Allison D. Burroughs United States District Judge Dated: December 31, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Myers v. US Department of Justice, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-us-department-of-justice-mad-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack