text:
07-21-2009, 02:39 PM #1New Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 3
Auto CHMOD Script Running in the backround
I am attempting to setup a script which will automatically append the proper file permissions [posix & acl's] to any new files on certain folders that I specify.
Someone Recommended
find /Users/Kevin/Desktop/TRANSFER -type f -exec chmod 777 {} \;
This only seems to run once and when new files put in I have to have the script run every so often as a cronjob, I really just want to have a script to change the permissions of files going into a folder.
If anybody knows of a solution this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
07-21-2009, 02:42 PM #2Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 126
Have you set this as cron ?
You can make a cron to run every 15 minutes.
07-21-2009, 11:38 PM #3Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Posts
- 630
How are the files uploaded to the folder? If you're the one uploading them, you may be able to configure your FTP client to chmod them immediately after uploading, removing the need for a script entirely.
Just setting the line you added as a cron on a 10 or 15 minute basis should work just fine.
JulesR is also correct - if they are being uploaded via FTP the client can chmod them automatically - if you are using a PHP script you can configure it to exec('chmod') the file as well.█ Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
█ New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
█ Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
█ http://www.mddhosting.com/
07-22-2009, 03:11 AM #5Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
- Posts
- 42
07-22-2009, 04:47 PM #6New Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 3
The issue is not a FTP server is an OSX workplace and a network share, Some people don't know how to set permissions on there files. I am trying to find out a way that a File goes into a directory and looks for new files, and chmod's the file accordingly than setting the permissions on all files every minuet.
you could simply set on a cron every few minutes to chmod the whole folder recursively.
As an example:
chmod 0755 /the/folder/here -R█ Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
█ New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
█ Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
█ http://www.mddhosting.com/
07-23-2009, 02:23 PM #8New Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 3
So there is no way to do it automaticly, I already have a cronjob setup, I just would like to have every file upon entry change automatically.
Similar Threads
Auto CHMOD script?By NodePlex in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 10Last Post: 07-31-2007, 07:22 PM
Helped Needed: Can't CHMOD to 666/Auto reverts to 766By CLKeenan in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 3Last Post: 12-22-2005, 12:21 AM
Auto-Host 2 PHP Script | Auto WHM Account Creation | Paypal BillingBy listenmirndt in forum Other Web Hosting Related OffersReplies: 1Last Post: 09-21-2004, 11:46 PM
Auto-Host 2 | WHM & Paypal Auto-Account Creation Script - Just ReleasedBy listenmirndt in forum Other Offers & RequestsReplies: 0Last Post: 07-06-2004, 04:41 AM
Auto-Host (WHM auto-account creation PHP script) Giveaway/Trade PromotionBy listenmirndt in forum Other Offers & RequestsReplies: 0Last Post: 06-19-2004, 01:56 AM


text:
139 4th Avenue SE, Perham, MN 56573
About the Listing
Great city home on a huge corner lot. Recently finished basement with Master Bedroom (has egress) and Full Master bath with whirlpool tub, oversized 2 car garage with storage above, partially fenced yard, new kitchen counters & cabinets, new flooring throughout most of the house, remodeled main floor bath, upper level recently remodeled, and new doors. Nothing left to do but move in.
Share Listing
Property Details for 139 4th Avenue SE, Perham, MN 56573
Bedrooms: 3
Bathrooms: 2 Full
Lot Size: 0.34 Acres
Lot Dimensions: 100x150
Year Built: 1931
Garage Dimensions: 2 car
Garage: Detached Garage, Driveway - Concrete
Style: (SF) One 1/2 Stories
Water: City Water/Connected
Sewer: City Sewer/Connected
Square Feet: 2004
Above Ground Sq Ft: 1196
Below Ground Sq Ft: 808 (approx)
Room Information for 139 4th Avenue SE, Perham, MN 56573
No Information Available.
School Information for 139 4th Avenue SE, Perham, MN 56573
School District: Perham-Dent
School District Phone: 218-346-4501
Interior Features for 139 4th Avenue SE, Perham, MN 56573
Appliances: Range, Dishwasher, Refrigerator, Washer, Dryer
Air Cond: None
Heating: Hot Water
Fireplaces: No
Basement: (808 sq Finished) Full, Finished (Livable), Day/Lookout Windows, Egress Windows, Concrete Block
Exterior Features for 139 4th Avenue SE, Perham, MN 56573
Lot Dimensions: 100x150
Roof: Asphalt Shingles
Zoning: Residential-Single
Financial Considerations for 139 4th Avenue SE, Perham, MN 56573
Tax Amount: $756
Taxes w/Assessments: $2,020
Tax/Property ID: 77000990507000
Tax Year: 2016
Monthly Payment = $0
INRIX Drive Time
Calculate Your Drive Time From This Property
Similar Listings For Sale
The data relating to real estate for sale on this web site comes in part from the Broker Reciprocity Program of the Regional Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota, Inc. Real estate listings held by brokerage firms other than the owner of this website are marked with the Broker Reciprocity logo or the Broker Reciprocity thumbnail logo and detailed information about them includes the name of the listing brokers.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Atom And Evil Fear Bible Black Double The Pain Rock And Roll Angel The Turn Of The Screw Eating The Cannibals Follow The Tears Neverhwere Breaking Into Heaven
Play.com ReviewThe Devil You Know is the debut album from Heaven and Hell, the members of which were also the Black Sabbath line-up that gave us, Mob Rules, Live Evil and Dehumanizer. With this hall of fame-esq collection of rockers, expectations should, quite rightly, be set high. With a pedigree to match, these guys were never going to disappoint.Tony Iommi has spent over 40 years proving that he knows how to write high calibre guitar riffs - he practically invented the mammoth, driving grooves of heavy metal. So, the fact that the riffs on The Devil You Know are good is no surprise. What is slightly surprising, is how sharp and fresh they are. Alongside Iommi is Geezer Butler on Bass guitar, once more renewing a duo that has developed an intricate understanding over their long careers. This is perfectly demonstrated on tracks such as 'Bible Black' and 'Follow The Tears', where Butler's crunching bass provides the perfect groove for Iommi's soaring riffs to glide over. Vinny Appice provides the rhythm for the frenetic fret work, superbly complimenting the more extravagant elements of the band's sound. The crisp production and thunderous volume of these three is the ideal backdrop for Ronnie James Dio to do what he does best. Make no mistake about it, he's most definitely at his finest here, combing darkly poetic lyrics with his voice's gorgeously passionate, theatrical enunciation. 'Double the Pain' allows Dio to show off the higher end of his vocal abilities - perhaps, more akin to his solo work - whilst up-tempo numbers like 'Eating the Cannibals' display his devilish aggression and ability to keep pace with the ferocity of the music.The Devil You Know most definitely sounds like an album the band wanted to make, as opposed to a muted, half-hearted attempt to recapture former glories - a curse that so many heritage bands fall foul of. Whilst it is apparent from the album's opener, 'Atom and Evil, that down-tempo, doomy metal is the prevailing sound, it is done with such majesty and skill that a lack of fast rockin' anthems is not a drawback. Afterall, these are four of the men that pioneered the style, and it's riff-tast
|Company Name
|Shop Name
|Shop Address
|Shop Phone Number
|Shop Email Address


text:
Missouri Brown (1808-?)
215,750pages onAdd New Page
this wiki
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Nothing more is currently known about her.
Father: Absalom Brown (c1778-aft1860)


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
April 8, 2013
DIGITECH IMAGE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, PLAINTIFF,v.MAMIYA DIGITAL IMAGING CO., LTD.; LEAF IMAGING LTD. D/B/A MAMIYALEAF AND MAMIYA AMERICA CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff Digitech Image Technologies, LLC brought a patent-infringement Complaint against, among others, Defendant Leaf Imaging Ltd., an Israeli company. Leaf moves to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Leaf contends that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in California because it conducts no direct sales in California and maintains no offices, employees, agents, or bank accounts in this state. But Leaf does have an established distribution relationship with a United States-based company and a website that specifically lists seven California retail locations at which consumers may purchase Leaf products-all indicating that Leaf contemplated that its products would reach California through the stream of commerce. The Court finds that under Federal Circuit case law, Leaf's contacts with California are sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction in this state. The Court accordingly DENIES Leaf's Motion to Dismiss.
Leaf is an Israeli digital-camera company that is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Kfar Saba, Israel. (Kalinski Decl. ¶ 2.) Leaf does not own property, pay taxes, maintain a bank account, employ anyone, or sell directly to consumers in the United States. (Id. ¶¶ 3--7.)
Leaf sells its products in the United States through Defendant Mamiya America Corporation, a distributor located in New York. (Id. ¶ 7--8.) Mamiya America Corporation is an independent entity from Leaf; Leaf does not exercise any control over Mamiya. (Id.)
Leaf maintains a website that is available worldwide. (Edmonds Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1; see Kalinski Decl. ¶ 9.) Leaf lists seven California retail locations on its website where consumers can purchase its products. (Edmonds Decl. Ex. 1.) But Leaf does not make sales or accept payments directly through its website. (Kalinski Decl. ¶ 9.) Neither does Leaf specifically direct advertisements or marketing to California residents or design products especially for California. (Id. ¶¶ 10--11.)
On October 1, 2012, Digitech filed a patent-infringement Complaint against Defendants. Digitech alleges on information and belief that all Defendants, including Leaf, are subject to "specific and/or general personal jurisdiction" in California, particularly due to sales of the allegedly infringing products in California. (Compl. ¶ 4.)
On March 7, 2013, Leaf moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. (ECF No. 26.) Digitech timely opposed on March 18, 2013. (ECF No. 29-1.) That Motion is now before the Court for decision.
Despite being properly served with process, a defendant may challenge a district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Federal Circuit case law applies to the personal-jurisdiction analysis in cases "intimately involved" with patent law. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Prediscovery, a plaintiff must only establish a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and all factual disputes must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Deprenyl Animal Health, Inc. v. Univ. of Toronto Innovations Found., 297 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant unless that defendant has certain meaningful contacts with the forum state. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471 (1985). District courts generally assess whether the defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction in a court of general jurisdiction in the forum state. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A).
Leaf moves to dismiss Digitech's patent-infringement Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Leaf argues that since it has no offices, property, sales agents, employees, or other direct contacts with California, this Court lacks either specific or general jurisdiction over it. Digitech responds only to the specific-jurisdiction issue. Digitech contends that Leaf's distribution relationship with Mamiya demonstrates that Leaf was aware that its allegedly infringing products would reach California through the stream of commerce, especially in light of Leaf listing seven California retail locations on its website at which its products are sold. The Court considers each party's arguments in turn.
A.General jurisdiction
A district court may only exercise general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when "the defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state, even if those contacts are not related to the cause of action." Elecs. for Imaging, 340 F.3d at 1349 (citation omitted). But sporadic and insubstantial forum-state contacts will not suffice for general jurisdiction. Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In its Complaint, Digitech simply alleges on information and belief that Leaf is subject to general jurisdiction. Digitech bases all of its jurisdictional allegations in the Complaint on Leaf's allegedly selling or inducing others to sell its allegedly infringing products in California, having an interactive website available to California residents, and regularly engaging in business in the forum state from which it allegedly derives substantial income. But Digitech does not directly address the general jurisdiction argument in its Opposition.
Leaf contends that it is not subject to general jurisdiction in California, because it has no offices, property, employees, bank accounts, or other contacts with California. Neither does Leaf pay taxes in this state or directly sell to California consumers.
Considering Leaf's dearth of direct contacts with this state, the Court finds that Leaf is not subject to general jurisdiction in California. If sporadic and insubstantial contacts with the forum state are insufficient to warrant the exercise of general jurisdiction, then it follows that lacking any direct contacts even further erodes any general-jurisdiction foundation. It is also telling that Leaf does not even attempt to argue the issue in its Opposition, relying instead on specific jurisdiction.
B.Specific jurisdiction
Evaluation of specific jurisdiction entails two inquiries: (1) whether a forum state's long-arm statute permits service of process, and (2) whether the assertion of jurisdiction would comport with due process. Elecs. for Imaging, 340 F.3d at 1349. Because California's long-arm statute is coextensive with federal due-process requirements, this Court need only focus only on the latter analysis. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800--01 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10.
The Federal Circuit employs a three-prong test to assess whether a court may exercise specific jurisdiction: "(1) whether the defendant purposefully directed activities at residents of the forum; (2) whether the claim arises out of or relates to those activities; and (3) whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair." Nuance Commc'ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
1.Purposeful direction The United States Supreme Court has held that the "forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State." WorldWide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297--98 (1980).
In Asahi Metal Industries Co. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County, the Court split on whether awareness by the defendant that a product it places into the stream of commerce will reach the forum state suffices for purposeful direction. 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (plurality opinion); compare id. at 112 (requiring some additional conduct by the defendant beyond mere awareness that the product will reach the forum state), with id. at 117 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) ("As long as a participant in [the stream of commerce] is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise.").
The Supreme Court attempted to jettison the foreseeability test in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011). But since the Court split again, the Federal Circuit interpreted that personal-jurisdiction law remains the same post-McIntyre, that is, the stream-of-commerce test remains intact. AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Digitech argues that Leaf is fully aware that its allegedly infringing products will and do reach California through the stream of commerce due to Leaf's established distribution relationship with Mamiya. Digitech adduced screenshots from Leaf's website depicting seven California retail locations at which consumers could purchase Leaf products. Digitech also verified that Leaf products are available for sale from at least one of the forum-state retailers.
Leaf responds that, not only does it completely lack any direct contacts with California, but it only distributes its products to Mamiya in New York and has no downstream control over where the products are ultimately marketed and sold. Leaf further contends that its website is generally available to anyone with Internet access, and Leaf does not conduct sales or accept payments through the website.
Digitech correctly analogizes to the Federal Circuit's opinion in Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In that case, the plaintiff brought a patent-infringement action against a Chinese manufacturer of ceiling fans. Id. at 1560. The manufacturer did sell directly to anyone in the forum state but rather used a United States-based distributor. Id. The manufacturer also had no service-of-process agent, employees, or assets in the forum state. Id. The district court dismissed the manufacturer for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the Federal Circuit reversed. Id. at 1572. The court held, "The allegations are that defendants purposefully shipped the accused fan into Virginia through an established distribution channel. The cause of action for patent infringement is alleged to arise out of these activities. No more is usually required to establish specific jurisdiction." Id. at 1565.
The facts of this case bear a striking resemblance to those in Beverly Hills Fan. Like the Chinese manufacturer in that case, Leaf has no assets, employees, agents, or other direct contacts with the forum state. But Leaf does have its established distribution relationship with Mamiya. Leaf also specifically lists on its website seven California retail locations at which consumers may purchase its products-all of which provide compelling evidence that Leaf contemplated that its products would foreseeably be carried into California through the stream of commerce. Digitech has accordingly carried its burden of establishing a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction through its Complaint and declaration supporting its Opposition.
Leaf's reliance on J. McIntyre Machinery at this stage of the case is unavailing for at least three reasons. First, the Supreme Court split on which stream-of-commerce formulation applied to the facts in that case. Second, the plurality opinion emphasized that the British manufacturer had only delivered four of its machines to the forum state and that the facts only showed an intent to serve the general U.S. market as opposed to the forum state specifically. 131 S. Ct. at 2790. In contrast, Digitech has made at least a prima facie showing of an established distribution channel between Leaf, Mamiya, and ultimately California. Leaf's own website envisages that California residents will purchase Leaf products in this state. Finally, the Federal Circuit specifically reviewed the effect of J. McIntyre and determined that Beverly Hills Fan still controls the personal-jurisdiction inquiry. AFTG-TG, LLC, 689 F.3d at 1363--64.
2.Claims arise out of forum-state activities
Since Digitech must only establish a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction at this motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court must accept as true its allegation that Leaf sold allegedly infringing products in California. Leaf's alleged infringement then arises out of its forum-state activities, namely, the sale of those products.
The Court therefore finds that Leaf is subject to specific jurisdiction in California.
3.Reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction
Even if a defendant is otherwise subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum state, the exercise of personal jurisdiction still must not offed "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemp't Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The defendant bears the hefty burden of establishing a "compelling case" demonstrating that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 477.
The Supreme Court has expounded several factors a district court must consider in evaluating the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction: (1) the burden on the defendant, (2) the forum state's interests, (3) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief; (4) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the several states' shared interest in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Asahi, 480 U.S. at 113.
Leaf argues that, as an Israeli company, it would be "inconvenienced" by having to litigate in California in a foreign legal system. Digitech disagrees, arguing that Leaf failed to establish the requisite compelling case of unreasonableness.
The Court agrees with Digitech. Leaf's "inconvenience" in having to litigate in California hardly suffices to divest this Court of personal jurisdiction over Leaf. Undoubtedly every defendant, foreign or domestic, experiences some degree of displeasure in having to defend itself. But of necessity, that reality does not militate against an exercise of jurisdiction.
The other Asahi factors establish a compelling case for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The federal-court system has a strong interest in resolving Digitech's myriad cases in one unified forum-California. Digitech is also a "citizen" of California in that it is formed under California law and has its principal place of business here. Digitech also has a strong interest in litigating in its home state, further undergirding the conclusion that this Court may reasonably exercise specific jurisdiction over Leaf.
For the reasons discussed above, Leaf Imaging Ltd.'s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Mccreary Farms
13465 Brooklyn Rd Evergreen, Alabama 36401(251) 578-2336
Print | Save | Directions
AboutMccreary Farms is located at the address 13465 Brooklyn Rd in Evergreen, Alabama 36401. They can be contacted via phone at (251) 578-2336 for pricing, hours and directions.
Mccreary Farms has an annual sales volume of 501K - 999,999. .
For maps and directions to Mccreary Farms view the map to the right. For reviews of Mccreary Farms see below.
You must Sign in to post reviews.
0 Reviews


text:
Use arrow keys to drive the bus. Press space bar to brake. Park at the highlighted spot. Do not run over people! Don't bang into other cars, you will lose a life.
Either scripts and active content are not permitted to run or Adobe Flash Player version
13.0.0 or greater is not installed.
Is this game not working? Any suggestions? Send your comments.


text:
BJU Heritage Studies: The American Republic Student Act. Manual Third Edition
BJU Press / 2009 / Paperback
$31.11 (CBD Price)
In Stock
CBD Stock No: WW352163
- All Products
- Academic
- Accompaniment Tracks
- Audiobooks
- Bible Accessories
- Bible Covers
- Bible Studies & Curriculum
- Bibles
- Books
- Buy in Bulk
- Catholic
- Children
- Christian Living
- Christmas
- Church & Pastoral
- Church Supplies
- Closeouts
- Clothing & Accessories
- Crafts & Recreation
- Download
- DVDs
- eBooks
- eBooks On Sale
- Family
- Fiction
- Gift & Home
- Homeschool
- Last Chance Bargains
- Music
- New Cyber Deals
- New Release
- Non-Fiction
- Pre-Order
- Slightly Imperfect
- Software
- Spanish
- Streaming Video
- Subscriptions
- Sunday School
- Teens
- Toys
Refine by
Advanced Search Links
Product Description
This student activity book accompanies BJU Press' The American Republic Student Text. With a variety of exercises, students won't grow bored with repetitious drills, but will rather engage in critical thinking and comprehension activities. Excerpts from primary documents are provided, with sentence completions, reinforcement, true/false, scripture-references, map exercises, chart completions, short answer, writing exercises, multiple choice, matching, and other forms of activities. 344 pages, softcover.
This resource is also known as Bob Jones Heritage Studies: The American Republic Student Activity Manual, Grade 8, 3rd Edition.
Product Information
|Format: Paperback
Vendor: BJU Press
Publication Date: 2009
Series: BJU Press Heritage Studies
Related Products
BJU Heritage Studies: The American Republic Grade 8 Homeschool Kit Third EditionBJU Press / 2010 / Other$181.30
BJU Heritage Studies: The American Republic Student Activity Manual, Teacher's Edition (Third Edition)BJU Press / 2009 / Other$35.83
BJU The American Republic Grade 8 Student Text, Third EditionBJU Press / 2010 / Trade Paperback$57.785 Stars Out Of 5 1 Reviews
BJU Heritage Studies: The American Republic Teacher's Edition (Third Edition)BJU Press / 2010 / Other$71.94
Product Reviews
Be the first to write a review!
Ask Christianbook
Have a question about this product? Ask us here.
Ask Christianbook
Find Related Products
- Homeschool >> History >> US History
Author/Artist Review
Here at Christianbook.com, we offer thousands of quality curriculums, workbooks, and references to meet your homeschooling needs. To assist you in your choices, we have included the following symbol next to those materials that specifically reflect a Christian worldview.
If you have any questions about specific products, our knowledgeable Homeschool Specialists will be glad to help you. Just call 1-800-788-1221.


text:
Don Payne
9,491pages onAdd New Page
this wiki
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
William Donald "Don" Payne co-wrote the screenplay for Thor, along with Ashley Edward Miller, and Zack Stentz.
He returned to write the story for its the sequel, Thor: The Dark World
He died from bone cancer in March 2013, and the movie Thor: The Dark World, which he co-wrote, is dedicated to his memory.
- He had co-written the screenplay of another Marvel Comics based film, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, produced by 20th Century Fox.


text:
From Our Friends
powered by ZergNet
4 cups in a quart
pierino is a trusted source on General Cooking and Tough Love.
That's correct, and in liquid measure two cups to a pint. If you pick up a graded Pyrex measuring cup, which might cost you about $6 bucks, you can just read the outside (which also will include measurements in litres).
Please enter a valid email address.
Well played. You deserve a cookie.
Thanks for signing up!
Connect with us to get more Food52!
Sign up for our useful, inspired emails and we'll give you everything you need to eat and live better—including recipes, how-tos, and exclusives and great gift ideas from our kitchen and home shop.


text:
Home | Submit a file | New | Categories | RSS Feeds | Blog
Free Software Advertising
"NTFS Partition Recovery" snapshot
NTFS partition salvage utility is very useful tool for both casual users as well as professionals as it is available at affordable price to backup erased data. File rescue tool smartly rescues lost multiple files like images, text and music files.
Essential downloads
Asoftech Automation records all operation of mouse and keystrokes and saves them as macros. It can play back the recorded macros to automate recorded tasks any number of times.It is very easy to use and doesn\'t require any programming experience.
AutoMe is a reliable and user-friendly windows automation software and macro recorder with task scheduler, color checker. AutoMe is very easy to use, you can record robot, and run it as many time as needed. No programing needed.
Product information
User rating
11% of users liked this software
Windows 7/Vista/XP/2000/Server
File size:
1.50 Mb
Date added:
October 11, 2010
Product page:
Description from the Publisher
Best data restoration software is specially developed to rescue those files and folders which you had lost in any of accident deletion like human error, virus attack, improper shut down and many more. NTFS partition recovery utility rescues lost music files, songs, movies, text documents and photographs. Powerful free data recovery software is easy to use due to highly interactive and user friendly GUI interface which offers better understanding of software features and functionality. Hard disk recovery utility is available with lots of attractive feature and functionalities like read only and non-destructive utility that allows user to perform recovery of lost data without affecting other saved files and folders. Effective file rescue tool quickly and instantly rescues your lost memorable and worthless data like award winning pics, wonderful trip photographs, ultimate collection of old songs, your favorite movies and text documents just in few processing time. NTFS partition recovery application is inexpensive and available within your budget so any one can use it without second thoughts from professionals to common users. Data recovery software easily runs on all major versions of Windows operating system like Vista, Windows XP, Windows 2000, server 2003 etc. Best data restoration software has lots of working areas like home, offices, school and colleges etc.
Software features:
* Hard disk rescue tool has flexibility to retrieve missing data from multiple manufactures of hard disk storage media like Sony, IBM, HP, Samsung, Toshiba, Maxtor, Olympus etc.
* Free file salvage utility regains corrupted files which were saved in jpeg, jpg, bmp, mp3, mp4 etc formats.
* Advance File repair software restores all your lost memorable photographs like your wedding album, school days images and much more.
* NTFS partition recovery utility has ability to restore damaged and corrupted data without affecting other existing files.
Users reviews & testimonials
This software is not reviewed yet.
Product tagsschool managment software, data rescue, kaspersky rescue disk, hanuman pics, photograph, wedding salon, budget, toshiba, lost documents, rescue, rescue disk, wedding
Other downloads from this publisher
Excellent NTFS Partition Recovery application successfully retrieves mistakenly formatted data from virus affected inaccessible hard disk and provides ...
[ More downloads from this publisher ]


text:
Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
This project is expected to greatly enhance the countries' economic interdependence with its neighbors (Owen, 2000).
Currency and its rate with U.S. Dollar. The Qatari Riyal (QR) is the official currency; the QR is divided into 100 dirhams (A Dictionary of Business, 1996).
Major industries. Major industries include crude oil production and refining, ammonia, fertilizers, petrochemicals, steel reinforcing bars, cement, and commercial ship repair (Qatar, 2005).
Communication infrastructure:
Telephone system. Telephones in use: 184,500 (2003 est.); general assessment: modern system centered in Doha. Tropospheric scatter to Bahrain; microwave radio relay to Saudi Arabia and UAE; submarine cable to Bahrain and UAE; satellite earth stations - 2 Intelsat (1 Atlantic Ocean and 1 Indian Ocean) and 1 Arabsat (State of Qatar, 2005).
Radio broadcast stations. AM 6, FM 5, shortwave 1 (1998) (State of Qatar, 2005).
Television broadcast stations. Qatar has one television broadcast station (plus three repeaters) (2001) (State of Qatar, 2005). Qatari regional satellite news channel Al Jazira, however, has done the most to raise the country's profile in recent years. According to Owen, "Its remarkably unrestricted style of political coverage has reinvigorated political debate across the Arab world, and ruffled many feathers" (p. 4). Saudi Arabia has rattled its political sabers in response in an attempt to censor Al Jazira, and criticism of Tunisia's human rights record drew this colorful abuse from Tunisian (state-dominated) newspapers in May 2000: "Qatar was a quiet and dreaming state until a storm of megalomania hit the son, who then violated the sanctity of his father and usurped his throne, starting an exciting journey of madness... he uses Al Jazira to focus the spotlight on himself... The poisons of the station have targeted Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Algeria, Libya and it is a long list" (cited in Owen, 2000, p. 4).
Internet country code..qa
Internet service providers. 221 (2004)
Transportation infrastructure.
Railways. None (State of Qatar, 2005).
Highways. Total: 1,230 km; paved: 1,107 km and unpaved: 123 km (1999 est.) (State of Qatar, 2005)
Waterways. NA.
Airlines, major airports. 4 (2004 est.)
Airports - with paved runways:
over 3,047 meters (2004 est).
Major ports. Doha.
Common business customs/etiquettes with regard to:
Customs when dealing with foreigners. There are some stark differences between business practices and customs in the West and those found in the Middle East; some of the more important considerations in this regard are as follows:
1. Middle Easterners are traditional. They appear to be religious. Islam has a tremendous effect on their lives. They strictly adhere to the rules and orders of Islam.
2. Middle Easterners are family-oriented. Family is the nucleus of Middle Eastern societies. They place special emphasis on family unity and coherence. Mothers in the family enjoy a divine respect.
3. Middle Easterners value friendship. They share all aspects of their lives with friends. In many cases, friends and neighbors are named in their wills.
4. Middle Easterners prefer consultation. Originating from Islam, consulting with others, particularly elders, is a common behavior of Middle Easterners.
5. Like Americans, Middle Easterners are also individualistic. While their form of individualism is different from that of Americans, they are individualistic in the context of their own culture.
6. Middle Easterners are less participative, particularly in decision making. Important decisions are made only by high-level authorities.
7. Middle Easterners are very conservative in risk taking, relying on intuition and instincts rather than data and procedures.
8. Middle Eastern societies and organizations are male-dominated. The level of female participation in management and social affairs is lower than that of most other societies (Baktari, 1995).
Punctuality. Punctuality is valued by both Qatari and Western managers, but the pace of negotiations is frequently slower than what many Westerners are accustomed to (Baktari, 1995).
Giving and receiving gifts. Islamic society is characterized by gift-giving, but these are a matter of religion; however, business people may wish to exchange gifts of modest value if the situation calls for it (Woellert, 1997).
Dealing with women managers. Among the four countries with unusually high indexes of occupational segregation in the Middle East, the countries of Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are characterized by highly unusual economies, with virtually no agricultural sectors and a heavy concentration in the oil industry in which there are virtually no women employed (Giele & Kahne, 1992). A significant factor affecting the participation rate of women in the economy is the country's dominant religion; for example, depending on which interpretation of Islamic Law governs at any given time, girls in Islamic cultures may or may not be afforded the right to an education on an equal basis with boys in their family (this is reflected in the slight discrepancies in the male/female literacy ratios noted above); furthermore, women may or may not have a right to work and earn wages before and after marriage (Dworkin & Schipani, 2003). There are signs that things are changing, but any progress in this area is going to be slow in coming. On the one hand, Qatar remains a leader in political experiments that have not been seen before in the Arab states that comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council; on the other hand, Qatar remains a highly traditional and patriarchal society that is overwhelmingly Moslem. In his essay, "Elections in Qatar: a Window of Democracy Opens in the Gulf," Louay Bahry (1999) reports that the nations of the GCC are "known for their oil wealth, religious conservatism and traditional political institutions, which concentrate political power in the hands of the rulers and their families. Thus far, except for Kuwait, there has been little direct participation by their populations in institutional structures. Qatar is changing this situation" (p. 119). Soon after he assumed power, the current emir decided that women should be able to vote, and that they should also be able to run as candidates for seats in the Municipal Council. According to Bahry, "Shortly after the Qatari municipal election on May 16, 1999, Kuwaiti women were given the right to vote and run for parliament, starting with the election of 2003" (p. 120). Despite these signs of progress, Western female managers may be at a distinct disadvantage compared to their male counterparts in terms of their ability to successfully negotiate in this traditional male-dominated, Moslem society; these issues are discussed further below.
Business negotiations. Notwithstanding the traditional patriarchal society in Qatar, the Qatari government and businesses alike are vulnerable to forces coming from the surrounding world which compel them to accommodate Western business practices, including negotiations with females. In fact, female executives from foreign countries are considered a "third sex" by many Middle Easterners (Woellert, 1997).
Business-related superstitions and taboos. There were no specific business-related superstitions or taboos for Qatar identified; however, standard business practices that are used for other Middle Eastern countries are deemed appropriate here (Woellert, 1997)
Personal opinion.
In terms of culture, how compatible is the country with United States? From a cultural perspective, the United States and Qatar are literally and figuratively worlds apart; however, there are some impressive signs coming from Qatar that the nation is leading the way in the region in terms of democratizing its institutions and paving the way for more active participation by women in Qatari society, government and business. For example, there has been a trend for government ministers and other public officials to replace, wherever possible, appointed bodies by elected ones in the councils attached to their ministries. According to Bahry:
The prevailing fever for democracy is so strong that the period has been dubbed 'the democracy festival' (Ayd aldimukratiyyah). The first significant election to demonstrate the new spirit was that of the powerful Board of the Qatar Chamber of Commerce. The elections for that Board took place in April 1998, when some 3,700 Qatari businessmen voted in a secret ballot to elect the 17 members of the Board. Until that date, members had been appointed by the emir, based on a recommendation by the minister of finance and economy. (p. 121).
The ideas of democracy are even flourishing in the schools and institutions of higher education. In December 1998, the deputy assistant minister of education and higher education, a woman, issued a statement announcing that "in accordance with the orientation of His Highness, the Emir bin Khalifa Al-Thani," she would apply the democratic process in all aspects and at all levels of her ministry. She is beginning with elected student bodies, in the form of student unions, in all schools, to enable students to begin practicing democracy at their level. Until now, few people in Qatar dreamed of involving students in any kind of representative bodies for fear that such activities could thrust young people into politics (Bahry, 1999).
Although these trends point towards a more inclusive society, it should be pointed out that the Qatari government is not seeking to create a Western-style parliament with unlimited legislative…[continue]
"International Marketing Qatar Country Study" (2005, November 01) Retrieved December 9, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/international-marketing-qatar-country-study-68996
"International Marketing Qatar Country Study" 01 November 2005. Web.9 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/international-marketing-qatar-country-study-68996>
"International Marketing Qatar Country Study", 01 November 2005, Accessed.9 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/international-marketing-qatar-country-study-68996
' Purchasing agents can place orders, gather information, and communicate with different organizations from any place at any time" (Martin & Hafer, p. 41). Following the introduction of the Internet, many purchasing departments and purchasing representatives were better able to engage in direct communications, order taking and fulfillment as well as the provision of technical support with their business counterparts abroad (Martin & Hafer, 2002). These authors add that, "The
World Trade Organization (WTO)) can facilitate trading opportunities of your two chosen countries The WTO through the GATT tries to help nations continue trade. This is done through 'The Doha Round' where the latest round of trade negotiations that seeks to redefine the international trading system with lower trade barriers and revised trade rules. It covers about twenty areas of trade. Also called the Doha Development Agenda it is focused on
It's well-known that soccer, like religion, can provoke violence like hooliganism and tramplings at overcrowded, large stadiums, and this is what many Americans assume it is all about. "But soccer has also proved unique in its ability to bridge differences and overturn national prejudices. The fact that the World Cup could even take place in South Korea and in Japan, as it did in 2002, was a victory for tolerance
(Jabal Omar Development Corporation 2010) Kuwait Since 2008, the real estate market in Kuwait has been continually declining. The reason why is because the economy was largely depending upon oil revenues. However, in 2010 the sector began witnessing an increase in prices. This is because of the Kuwaiti government was aggressively promoting the tourism industry. As developers are expecting a strong increase in foreign direct investment, due to the governments push
A number of economists suggest that markets are efficient, but this efficiency is merely assumed. In this regard, Batten points out that, "There is no actual proof. It is virtually impossible to test for market efficiency since the 'correct' prices cannot be observed. To get over this hurdle, most tests examine the ability of information-based trading strategies to make above-normal returns. But the results of such tests do not
Consequently, his observations concerning the business climate in Saudi Arabia with respect to the significance of religion in the Kingdom can be considered authentic. According to Indris, with respect to the perception of performance and contractual obligations among Saudis, "It should be noted that the issue is not with the belief itself but rather with people's misguided interpretations of the belief and Islam teachings. While Islam teaches that ultimate
Asia Pacific Business Australia is a large island continent that is located on the south-east of Asia. Covering a total area of 7,617,930 km2 (Australia G., 2012) with a population of 22,876,023 individuals as per the 2012 estimate (Australia), it happens to be very large country with a relatively small population. Australia is one of the most urbanized countries in the world. Since vast tracts of the country are not only


text:
track list
Album I Often Dream of Trains
Label Rhino Records
Released January 01, 1984
This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form. Such content is not representative of Viacom Media Networks.
©2016 Viacom International Inc. All Rights Reserved. MTV and all related titles and logos are trademarks of Viacom International Inc.


text:
Gladys M Ludden - (nee ) Cooper?
Happy New Year everyone!
I am re-starting my search again now that the holidays are over. I am in need of some help. I am looking for my grandmother's sister. (Gladys May Cooper) I found info on her on the 1900, 1910 census and that is all I can find.
Here is some tidbit of info:
Gladys May Cooper
DOB: Feb. 20, 1899 in Florence, MA
Parents: Walter A Cooper and Anna Louisa or Louisa A (Jones)Sisters were Beatrice Cooper(Wellspeak 1900 – 1981), Esther Cooper(Foisey/Woodrow 1903 - 1980) and Myrtle Eliza Cooper(Lancto/Mallette 1911 – 1973 - who is my grandmother)
In their obits there is no mention of Gladys so I assume that she passed away very young ?? and no mention anywhere that I can find that she got married.
When I was doing further research I found that there was a "Gladys Ludden" with the same date of birth and that she gotten the ss# from Massachusetts in 1951 and she died in June, 1972, last lived in Huntington NY.
However, I could not find any obit. Also found info that a " Gladys Ludden" died in Westfield, MA on June 28, 1972 and has the same DOB too.
Can anyone help me confirm if " Ludden" could be my Gladys May Cooper that I am looking for? firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
You missed it This great deal for ChiroMassage Centers is over. But don't despair, we've got more great deals every day.
Related Deals That You May Like
Amber Gold Spa
Dysport, Botox, Laser Hair Removal, or IPL
Chicago - South / Southwest Suburbs$399$109.99
Complete Clinics
5 Vitamin B-12 Injections
Chicago - South / Southwest Suburbs$225$59
The Beauty Cell
Massage, IPL Photo Facial, or Juvederm
Chicago - South / Southwest Suburbs$100$59
Solutions Laser Studio
Laser Hair Removal or Laser Tattoo Removal
Chicago - South / Southwest Suburbs$300$149
ChiroMassage Centers
Chiropractic Exam and Treatment with Massage
Focused primarily on providing relief and restoring your well-being, a visit to a ChiroMassage Center facility will have a licensed massage therapist concentrate on you body's achiest areas, as recommended by a chiropractor:
• $29 ($175 value) for a chiropractic massage package
• Includes chiropractic exam and treatment and one-hour therapeutic massage
• Valid at six offices throughout Illinois and Indiana
PAID VALUE EXPIRES ON December 6, 2021
PROMOTIONAL VALUE EXPIRES ON December 7, 2014
477 Spring Road, Elmhurst, IL 60126
630-530-0506 | get directions
849 South Ridge Road, Chicago, IL 60447
815-467-5223 | get directions
Suite 115
1935 95th Street, Naperville, IL 60564
630-718-0848 | get directions
7822 East 37th Avenue, Hobart, IN 46342
219-962-8128 | get directions
2072B East Commercial Avenue, Lowell, IN 46356
219-696-8916 | get directions
Suite 105
5680 Caito Drive, Lawrence, IN 46226
317-546-9882 | get directions


text:
Online Coupons
CARiD Coupon CodeCARiD with years of experience in the industry to be a user-friendly place to find the auto accessories you're looking for. With several convient options for searching, including shop by vehicle, by product, or by brand. CARiD wants to make it easy to save with the CARiD coupon code.
Expire Date
Coupons and promotions you might like
EXTRA $5 off $50+ orders
Coupon Code: SEARS2016Exclusive Online Only Savings! > See all coupons


text:
Kudos Kirkland Volunteers Light Heritage Hall and Marina Park Pavilion/
[scrollGallery id=192] When downtown Kirkland volunteers decorated the storefronts with lights and garland last week, two prominent locations were skipped: Heritage Hall and the Pavilion at Marina Park. Michelle Sailor and her team of Kudos Kirkland volunteers stepped up to finish the job on Wednesday morning. Thank you to Tom and Jan Reichert, Samy Khoury, George Noble, Tia Scarce, James Graham and Michelle Sailor.


text:
I've been a customer of yours for almost 4 years, and I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate the many ways you show that you appreciate your customers. Seriously, I am thankful to deal with a business that treats its customers with respect, and that will keep me coming back to MisterArt.com!
More Testimonials »
Clip Frame
Up to 28% Off
East Village Frames
From $10.80
Solid Wood Float Frame
Up to 27% Off


text:
At mydentist, our extensive network of practices enables us to offer a choice of different working hours from weekends and evenings to part time or full time across different local practices. We are passionate about helping our NHS and private patients to look after their dental hygiene and ensure they maintain a healthy mouth.
We have a Dental Hygienist/Therapist role available in Runcorn, Cheshire and the details are:
- Vacancy start date: ASAP
- Days and hours available: Fridays 9am - 5pm
Runcorn is an industrial town and cargo port in the Metropolitan Borough of Halton, Cheshire, England. The town is on the southern bank of the River Mersey, where the estuary narrows to form Runcorn Gap. Directly to the north across the Mersey is the town of Widnes. Upstram and 8 miles to the northeast is the town of Warrington and downstream 16 miles to the west is the city of Liverpool.
We actively market our hygiene and therapy services in all practices, have a ready-made referral network to keep you busy and provide competitive rates of pay. We'll support you throughout your career, so you can focus on providing quality treatments and advice to patients.
Click 'Apply for Job' below to apply online. Alternatively, for an informal discussion regarding this role and other opportunities at mydentist, please contact Nicola Unsworth on 01204 799779 or [email protected]


text:
Macca may have fans from five decades of music, but not many of them can say they've gigged with him - and probably none at the tender age of two.
But at the sound check for his concert in Montevideo, Uruguay, he invited Ichiro to join him on stage for a duet version of Get Back - and Ichiro was suitably dressed for the part.
The Argentinian toddler had travelled from his own country with his parents to see the Beatles icon in concert. The mini-Beatle even had his own miniature version of Sir Paul's famous Hofner bass guitar.
Ichiro, dressed in his very own Sgt Pepper outfit, joined Sir Paul on stage for a sound check ahead of his concert in Montevideo, Uruguay.
Macca shares his musical influence - Ichiro looks suitably impressed
Suggested For You
Get top stories and blog posts emailed to me each day. Newsletters may offer personalized content or advertisements. Learn more


text:
St Peter's ChurchCambridge Street, Harrogate
Wesley ChapelOxford Street, Harrogate
Mowbray Community ChurchWestmoreland Street, Harrogate
St Mark's ChurchLeeds Road, Harrogate
Harlow Hill Methodist ChurchOtley Road, Harrogate
St John's ChurchBilton Lane, Harrogate
St Andrew's ChurchHigh Street, Harrogate
West Park United Reformed ChurchMeadow Drive, Harrogate
It's here! We announce our annual top 100 cultural contributors in Scotland. Check out who made the cut


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
February 12, 2007
JOSEPH WAYNE EASTRIDGE, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
In January 1976, Joseph Wayne Eastridge, Joseph Nick Sousa and Michael A. Damien were convicted in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia of first-degree murder, while armed, and thereafter were sentenced to twenty years to life.*fn1 On May 26, 2005, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, United States District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, granted Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa's Petition and Supplemental Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.*fn2 In so doing, Judge Collyer found, inter alia, that the prosecution's failure to produce certain Grand Jury testimony during Plaintiffs' 1976 trialviolated Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa's due process rights, as interpreted in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed. 2d 215 (1963).
In the instant action, Plaintiffs seek monetary damages from Defendants -- the United States of America and the two former Assistant United States Attorneys for the District of Columbia, Joseph J. Guerrieri, Jr. and Martin J. Linsky,*fn3 who were the prosecutors in Plaintiffs' 1976 trial -- based on Defendants' alleged violations of Plaintiffs' civil rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, which Plaintiffs oppose. Upon a searching review of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs' Opposition, Defendants' Reply, the relevant statutes and case law, Judge Collyer's May 26, 2005 Opinion, and the entire record herein, the Court shall grant Defendants' motion to dismiss and shall therefore dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint in its entirety.
In January 1976, Plaintiffs Joseph Wayne Eastridge, Joseph Nick Sousa, decedent Michael A. Damien, and non-party Stephen C. Jones were convicted in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia of first-degree murder, while armed, for the stabbing death of Johnnie Battle. Compl. ¶ 11. A fifth co-defendant, Richard C. Richter, was convicted of assault. Id. Plaintiffs were prosecuted by Defendant, the United States of America, by and through Defendant Assistant United States Attorneys Joseph J. Guerrieri and Martin J. Linsky. Id.; ¶ 14.
At trial, the Government's theory of the case was that a group associated with a motorcycle gang, the Pagans, was involved in a racially-charged confrontation with three black men, including Mr. Battle, outside the Godfather Lounge in Washington, D.C. Id. ¶ 19; see also, Eastridge v. United States, 372 F. Supp. 2d 26, 28-29 (D.D.C. 2006) (Collyer, J.) (granting Plaintiffs' Petition and Supplemental Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus). After a series of verbal exchanges, Mr. Battle retrieved a handgun from his car and fired into the group, wounding one of the Pagans. Compl. ¶ 19; Eastridge, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 29. Mr. Battle fled on foot down Wisconsin Avenue. Compl. ¶ 19; Eastridge, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 29. Plaintiffs and Mr. Jones allegedly gave chase, with their knives drawn, chasing Mr. Johnnie Battle up to Wisconsin Avenue, where Mr. Battle was seen tripping on a curb, falling backwards, with his arms up, and being stabbed repeatedly by Plaintiffs and Mr. Jones. Compl. ¶ 19; Eastridge, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 29.
Plaintiffs' convictions were affirmed on appeal by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Eastridge, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 43. In 1981, Plaintiff Eastridge filed a motion for a new trial in the District of Columbia Superior Court, which was denied without an evidentiary hearing. Id. That denial was affirmed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Id. In September 1983, Plaintiff Damien filed a pro se Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence in the Superior Court, which was also denied. Id. In April 1995, Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa filed a joint Motion to Vacate Convictions and Request for Evidentiary Hearing in the Superior Court, requesting that the court vacate their convictions based on new evidence and actual innocence. Id. The Superior Court determined that Plaintiffs Eastridge and Damien's new evidence claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and that the new evidence did not outweigh the testimony presented at trial. Id. at 43-44. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a divided decision, finding that Plaintiffs Eastridge and Damien's new evidence claims were time-barred.
Id. at 44.
In December 2000, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which the United States opposed. Id. at 45. After briefing and oral argument, Judge Collyer ordered an evidentiary hearing "to determine whether, in light of new evidence, [Plaintiffs] were entitled to a substantive review of their constitutional claims." Id. Judge Collyer conducted this three-day evidentiary hearing in December 2004, "at which [Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa] tried to disprove the Government's theory of the case at trial -- that [Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa] chased Mr. Battle on foot with "knives drawn." Id. Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa also "sought to demonstrate that, given all the evidence available now, no reasonable juror could find them guilty of the murder of Mr. Battle." Id. at 46. During this three-day hearing, Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa elicited testimony from new witnesses and new evidence from witnesses who appeared at trial, but whose testimony was limited or foreclosed by virtue of an evidentiary rule imposed by the judge during Plaintiffs' 1976 trial that prevented Plaintiffs' lawyers from "making arguments or introducing evidence through direct or cross-examination that could 'bring into play any other defendant.'" Id. at 35, 46.
Among the witnesses who testified during the December 2004 evidentiary hearing was Ms. Pamela Heim. Id. at 47. Ms. Heim originally testified for the Government at Plaintiffs' 1976 trial, including testifying that Mr. Charles Jennings and Mr. John Wood, two other members of the Pagans, were among the group of gang members at the Godfather Lounge on the night that Mr. Battle was killed and that Messrs. Jennings and Wood were present during the confrontations with Mr. Battle and his companions. Id. at 47; Compl. ¶ 22. During the 2004 hearing before Judge Collyer, Ms. Heim was questioned about the Grand Jury testimony of Messrs. Jennings and Wood, which was not provided to the defense for use at trial. Eastridge, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 47. Neither Mr. Jennings nor Mr. Wood testified at trial, however, "Mr. Jennings told the Grand Jury that, after [a prior incident that evening], both he and Mr. Wood decided not to go to the Godfather." Id.; Compl. ¶ 21. "Mr. Wood's Grand Jury testimony was substantially similar, adding that Mr. Jennings had driven him home and that he was in "no way involved in any of the events that took place at or near the Godfather Lounge." Eastridge, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 47; Compl. ¶ 21. In response to questioning at the December 2004 evidentiary hearing, Ms. Heim reaffirmed her trial testimony. Eastridge, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 47.Ms. Heim also testified at the December 2004 evidentiary hearing that after the incident at the Godfather Lounge, she returned to the Virginia home of the leader of the Pagans, where Mr. Jennings and another member of the gang later arrived "looking 'distraught' and stated that they 'got to lay low' and 'that they had run all the way from D.C.'" Id. at 48 (quoting Evidentiary Hearing Transcript). This testimony was not allowed at Plaintiffs' 1976 trial based on the trial judge's evidentiary rule. Id.
In her May 26, 2005 Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa's Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Judge Collyer reviewed in great detail the history of Plaintiffs' 1976 trial and the evidence and testimony presented at the 2004 evidentiary hearing, as well as a number of documents that Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa submitted in support of their Petition. Id. at 51-52. These included: (1) an affidavit from Plaintiffs' co-defendant, Mr. Jones, "recanting his trial testimony, admitting his role in the murder of Mr. Battle, and affirming that Messrs. Eastridge, Sousa, and Damien did not participate in the murder. The affidavit identifies Messrs. Jennings and Wood (both deceased), an unnamed individual, and Mr. Jones as the individuals who killed Mr. Battle;" (2) affidavits from two former Pagans with criminal records "stating that in the 1970s Mr. Wood confessed to his role in the murder," implicated Messrs. Jennings and Jones in the murder, and professed Plaintiffs' innocence; and (3) an affidavit from Mr. Richter, also a co-defendant in Plaintiffs' 1976 trial "attesting that Mr. Wood confessed his role in the murder to him," that Mr. Jennings told him that he threw his knife away as he fled from the scene of the murder, and that Mr. Jennings desired to turn himself in shortly before he died. Id. at 51.
Based on the entirety of this record, Judge Collyer concluded that "this is the rare case in which Petitioners can prove their 'actual innocence' of the crime charged as well as violations of their constitutional rights at trial." Id. at 29; Compl. ¶ 17. Specifically, Judge Collyer found that Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa were "actually innocent" of the murder of Mr. Battle both as principals and as aiders and abettors. Eastridge, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 53-56. Judge Collyer continued to examine whether Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa's "actual innocence" was accompanied by the requisite "constitutional error that probably resulted in their conviction." Id. at 56. In so doing, Judge Collyer found that the evidentiary rule imposed by the trial judge at Plaintiffs' 1976 trial violated Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa's Fifth Amendment right to shift the blame to others and also violated their Sixth Amendment right to confront and fully cross-examine all Government witnesses against them. Id. at 59.
In addition, Judge Collyer found that the "prosecution's failure to produce the Grand Jury testimony of Messrs. Wood and Jennings was a constitutional violation that prejudiced [Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa] at trial." Id. at 59. Judge Collyer based this finding on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, in which the Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good or bad faith of the prosecution." Id., 3373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. Judge Collyer determined that the Grand Jury testimony of Messrs. Jennings and Wood was both exculpatory and material, stating:
As a general matter, false exculpatory statements can produce an inference of guilt. The combination of Ms. Heim's testimony that Mr. Wood and Mr. Jennings were present at the Godfather; that Mr. Jones was among those who chased Mr. Battle; and that Barber and Jennings ran on foot to Virginia, arriving distraught and wanting to hide, would have materially supported [Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa's] trial argument that the unindicted 'phantoms' (no longer phantoms, but identified persons) were more likely the murderers. Had they been aware of the false testimony, defense counsel might have presented Ms. Heim with more-particularized questions about Mr. Wood and Mr. Jennings. Of course, they could also have called both men to testify and to confront their own Grand Jury testimony in an effort to show that persons other than [Plaintiffs Eastridge and Sousa] could have committed the murder.
Id. at 60; Compl. ¶ 28. Judge Collyer further found that "the prosecution was aware of" the discrepancy between Messrs. Jennings and Wood's Grand Jury testimonyand the trial record, "but did not produce the Grand Jury transcripts." Id. at 59.
Based largely on Judge Collyer's May 26, 2005 Memorandum Opinion, Plaintiffs filed their five-count Complaint on March 10, 2006, alleging that Defendants violated Plaintiffs "civil rights, including substantive and due process rights, and all other civil rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America." Compl. ¶ 1. Count One is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the United States, as well as Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky in their individual and official capacities, and alleges that Defendants "acting deliberately, recklessly and under color of law, withheld and suppressed exculpatory and impeachment evidence from the Plaintiffs" that resulted in "their wrongful convictions and imprisonments," and violated the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted in Brady v. Maryland. Id. ¶¶ 33-34. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants "engaged in illegal behavior by helping establish or carry out regulations, customs, ordinances, rules, practices, and/or policies . . . that manifested a deliberate indifference to and reckless disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs and other citizens;" that Defendants "deliberately, recklessly and under color of law violated Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing adequately to investigate the Plaintiffs' claims of innocence;" and that as a "direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions of the Defendants" Plaintiffs were "denied their right to a fair trial, were wrongly convicted and imprisoned, and suffered numerous injuries and damages." Id. ¶¶ 35-37.
Counts Two and Three are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against only the United States of America. Count Two alleges that the United States "created and maintained a custom, policy and/or practice of failing to disclose material exculpatory evidence in violation of" Brady v. Maryland, and that this represented an "unconstitutional governmental custom, practice and/or policy." Id. ¶ 40. Count Three alleges that the United States also maintained a "custom, policy and/or practice of failing to adequately train and supervise its employees . . . regarding failing to disclose material exculpatory evidence in violation of" Brady v. Maryland, and that this also represented an "unconstitutional municipal custom, practice and/or policy." Id. ¶ 43.
Counts Four and Five are brought by the Estate of Michael A. Damien and do not specify which Defendants they are brought against. Count Four asserts a claim for Wrongful Death, alleging that "as a direct and proximate result of the intentional, unconstitutional negligent and/or wrongful acts of the Defendants, the decedent was falsely convicted of a crime for which he was innocent, and was subsequently imprisoned, where he died on December 10, 2002, while at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary." Id. ¶ 47. Count Five asserts a claim under the District of Columbia Survival Act, alleging that "the decedent's right of action for wrongful death and negligent conduct against the Defendants, survives in favor of" his estate. Id. ¶ 50.
On May 22, 2006, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, in which they assert a number of arguments. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to effect proper service on Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky, in their individual capacities, and that as a result this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over those Defendants. Defs' Mot. to Dismiss at 3-6. Second, Defendants argue that Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky are not subject to suit in their individual capacities because they are shielded by absolute prosecutorial immunity. Id. at 6-9. Third, Defendants argue that Counts One through Three are barred as against the United States by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not apply to federal officials acting under color of federal law. Id. at 9-15. In addition, Defendants assert a number of challenges to the claims brought by the estate of Mr. Damien. Id. at 15-21.
Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on June 30, 2006, arguing that all of their claims were properly brought. See generally Pls' Opp'n to Defs' Mot. to Dismiss (hereinafter "Pls' Opp'n"). Among other arguments, Plaintiffs assert that they have properly served Defendants Linsky and Guerrieri, in their individual capacities, within the time afforded by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 10-11. Defendants acknowledge as much in their Reply, filed on July 26, 2006, but otherwise maintain that Plaintiffs' Complaint must be dismissed. Reply to Pls' Opp'n to Defs' Mot. to Dismiss (hereinafter "Defs' Reply") at 1 n.2. In addition, on August 9, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply, along with a proposed sur-reply. Pls' Mot. for Leave of Ct. to File Sur-Reply. Defendants opposed Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply on August 17, 2006.
A. Rule 12(b)(1)
A court must dismiss a case when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). In general, a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) should not prevail "unless plaintiffs can prove no set of facts in support of their claim that would entitle them to relief." Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). A court may appropriately dispose of a case under 12(b)(1) for standing, and may "consider the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Coalition for Underground Expansion v. Mineta, 333 F.3d 193, 198 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see also Artis v. Greenspan, 223 F. Supp. 2d 139, 152 n.1 (D.D.C. 2002) ("A court may consider material outside of the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of venue, personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction."); Vanover v. Hantman, 77 F. Supp. 2d 91, 98 (D.D.C. 1999) ("where a document is referred to in the complaint and is central to plaintiff's claim, such a document attached to the motion papers may be considered without converting the motion to one for summary judgment") (citing Greenberg v. The Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 177 F.3d 507, 515 (6th Cir. 1999)). At the stage in litigation when dismissal is sought, the plaintiff's complaint must be construed liberally, and the plaintiff should receive the benefit of all favorable inferences that can be drawn from the alleged facts. EEC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997). In spite of the favorable inferences that a plaintiff receives on a motion to dismiss, it remains the plaintiff's burden to prove subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Am. Farm Bureau v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 121 F. Supp. 2d 84, 90 (D.D.C. 2000).
B. Rule 12(b)(6)
"In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, unlike resolving a motion under Rule 12(b)(1), the court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and must accept as true all reasonable factual inferences drawn from well-pleaded factual allegations." In re United Mine Workers of Am. Employee Benefit Plans Litig., 854 F. Supp. 914, 915 (D.D.C. 1994); see also Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("The complaint must be 'liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff,' who must be granted the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged."). While the court must construe the Complaint in the Plaintiff's favor, it "need not accept inferences drawn by the plaintiff[] if such inferences are not supported by the facts set out in the complaint." Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1276. Moreover, the court is not bound to accept the legal conclusions of the non-moving party. See Taylor v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 753, 762 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The court is limited to considering facts alleged in the complaint, any documents attached to or incorporated in the complaint, matters of which the court may take judicial notice, and matters of public record. See St. Francis Xavier Sch., 117 F.3d at 624; Marshall County Health Care Auth. v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Factual allegations in briefs of memoranda of law may not be considered when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, particularly when the facts they contain contradict those alleged in the complaint. Henthorn v. Dep't of Navy, 29 F.3d 682, 688 (D.C. Cir. 1994); cf. Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 (1996) (when a motion to dismiss is based on the complaint, the facts alleged in the complaint control).
In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants assert, inter alia, that Counts One through Three of Plaintiffs' Complaint must be dismissed because Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity, while Defendant United States is protected from suit by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In addition, Defendants raise a number of challenges to Counts Four and Five, brought by the estate of Mr. Damien.*fn4 The Court shall address each of Defendants' arguments in turn.
A. Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky are Entitled to Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity in their Individual Capacities
1. Allegations Contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint
Count One of Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts a claim against Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky in both their individual and official capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.*fn5 Defendants correctly argue that Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky are shielded from individual liability in this action by the absolute immunity afforded to prosecutors, and that as a result Plaintiffs' Complaint must be dismissed with respect to Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky.*fn6 The Supreme Court has recognized two kinds of immunity applicable to public officials sued for damages under § 1983. Gray v. Poole, 243 F.3d 572, 575 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The first, qualified immunity, applies to most public officials, and protects officials for performance of discretionary functions only when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Id. (citing Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 260, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed. 2d 209 (1993). Some officials, however, perform "special functions . . . which deserve absolute protection from damages liability." Buckley, 509 U.S. at 260, 113 S.Ct. 2606. Where absolute immunity applies, "an official is protected from all suits attacking conduct within the scope of the immunity, even if the official is alleged to have acted in bad faith." Gray, 243 F. 3d at 575 (citing Moore v. Valder, 65 F.3d 189, 194 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). In determining whether absolute immunity applies, the Supreme Court applies a "functional approach . . . which looks to the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it." Buckley, 509 U.S. at 269, 113 S.Ct. 2606 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed. 2d 128 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a criminal prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 "in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case." Id., 424 U.S. at 430, 96 S.Ct. 984. In so finding, the Supreme Court looked to the considerations of public policy underlying the common-law rule of absolute immunity for prosecutors, which include "concern that harassment by unfounded litigation would cause a deflection of the prosecutor's energies from his public duties, and the possibility that he would shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his public trust." Id., 424 U.S. at 423, 96 S.Ct. 984. The Supreme Court concluded that these "considerations supported a rule of absolute immunity for conduct of prosecutors that was 'intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." Buckley, 509 U.S. at 270, 113 S.Ct. 2606 (citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430, 96 S.Ct. 984.
Plaintiffs attempt to avoid the import of absolute prosecutorial immunity by pointing to case law which holds that a prosecutor engaged in investigatory or administrative, as opposed to advocatory, functions is entitled to only qualified immunity. See Pls' Opp'n at 11-13 (citing McSurely v. McClellan, 697 F.2d 309, 318 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). Specifically, Plaintiffs note that a "prosecutor's failure to preserve evidence" has been held to be non-advocatory. Id. at 12-13. However, as Defendants correctly argue, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky destroyed exculpatory evidence, but rather that they failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence to Plaintiffs during their 1976 trial. Moreover, the two cases that Plaintiffs cite in support of their argument that Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky's conduct was administrative explicitly distinguish the advocatory function carried out by a prosecutor with respect to determining whether evidence should be disclosed pursuant to Brady from the prosecutor's administrative function in preserving such evidence. See Wilkinson v. Ellis, 484 F. Supp. 1072, 1083 (E.D. Pa. 1980) (". . . we cannot accept [Plaintiff's] characterization of his act as a Brady judgment. Prosecutors make Brady judgments when they decide whether to turn over evidence to the defense . . . Imbler absolutely protects these prosecutorial acts."); Henderson v. Fisher, 631 F.2d 1115, 11120 (3rd Cir. 1980).
Plaintiffs further argue that because Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky allegedly received Brady material "while investigating a criminal offense," the situation is "no different from the typical scenario wherein a police officer obtains a statement from a witness containing exculpatory information . . . and fails to turn over such Brady information to the prosecutor involved in the case." Id. at 12. Plaintiffs are correct that prosecutors are only entitled to absolute immunity from suit for advocatory functions and that a "prosecutor's administrative duties and those investigatory functions that do not relate to an advocate's preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial proceedings are not entitled to absolute immunity." Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273, 113 S.Ct. 2606. Indeed, "the actions of a prosecutor are not absolutely immune merely because they are performed by a prosecutor." Id. Instead, an "official seeking absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that such immunity is justified for the function in question." Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed. 2d 547 (1991). Plaintiffs are also correct that police and other officials are not entitled to absolute immunity for their investigatory actions, including a police officer's alleged failure to turn over exculpatory material. See, e.g., Bragdon v. Malone, 425 F. Supp. 2d 1, 4-5 (D.D.C. 2006).
However, in the context of absolute immunity, the D.C. Circuit has drawn a clear distinction between a police officer's role in "acquiring evidence which might be used in a prosecution," which is not protected, and the "organization, evaluation, and marshaling of such evidence by the prosecutor," which is protected." Moore v. Valder, 65 F.3d 189, 194-95 ( D.C. Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original) (citing Barbera v. Smith, 836 F.2d 96, 100 (2d Cir. 1987). Indeed, in Imbler, the prosecutor was alleged to have knowingly used false testimony and suppressed material exculpatory evidence at trial. Id. Moreover, in Moore v. Valder, the D.C. Circuit specifically stated that "withholding after indictment information that is subject to disclosure under Brady v. Maryland . . . is advocatory." Id., 65 F.3d at 194; see also Hazel v. Reno, 20 F. Supp. 2d 21, 24 n.3 (D.D.C. 1998) ("absolute immunity insulates prosecutors from suits despite allegations of . . . knowingly failing to disclose Brady material before trial) (citing Moore v. Valder). The gravamen of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky failed to produce to Plaintiffs material exculpatory evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, and that their "failure to produce the Grand Jury testimony of Messrs. Wood and Jennings was a constitutional violation that prejudiced the Plaintiffs at trial." Compl. ¶ 25. As the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit precedent makes clear, this conduct is advocatory and thus within the scope of the absolute immunity afforded to Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky as prosecutors.
2. Allegations Contained in Plaintiffs' Proposed Sur-Reply Defendants filed their Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition on July 26, 2006
Thereafter, on August 9, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply, which Defendants oppose. In their proposed sur-reply, Plaintiffs claim that, after they filed their Opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss, they "received correspondence and other materials which unequivocally demonstrate that Defendants repeatedly failed to disclose Brady material to the Plaintiffs long after Plaintiffs' convictions had occurred." See Pls' Mot. for Leave of Court to File Sur-Reply at 1 (emphasis in original). Thus, Plaintiffs argue, it "does not carry weight" to claim "that the individual Defendants were engaged in merely 'advocatory' functions in the decades following the criminal trial in this matter." Id. at 1-2 (emphasis in original).
Specifically, in support of their proposed sur-reply, Plaintiffs provide the Court with the Affidavit of Kate Hill Germond, assistant director of Centurion Ministries, the non-profit organization that was involved in investigating Plaintiffs' case and pursuing Plaintiffs' appeals and post-trial motions. Germond Aff. ¶¶ 2-4; Eastridge, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 29. In her Affidavit, Ms. Germond details meetings and correspondence between 1989 and 1991, in which Centurion Ministries "specifically request[ed] any statements or grand jury testimony of [Messrs.] Jennings, Woods [sic] and Barber" from the Chief of the Special Proceedings Section of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. Germond Aff. ¶¶ 5, 7. According to Ms. Germond, the United States Attorney's Office "agreed to review their entire file including any grand jury materials and share with Centurion Ministries what the prosecutors determined to be appropriate to share." Id. ¶ 8. Ms. Germond attaches to her Affidavit the letter sent by the Chief of the Special Proceedings Section to Centurion Ministries after this review, in which he states that the United States Attorney's Office "reviewed all of the files and records which pertain to the Sousa, Eastridge and Damien case" including Grand Jury materials, and "engaged in a lengthy telephone conversation with [Defendant]." Germond Aff., Ex. C (6/17/91 Letter to Centurion Ministries). Nevertheless, the United States Attorney's Office concluded that "the version of events provided by [Plaintiffs] is patently incredible" and that, as there was "simply nothing in the record which suggests that innocent men were convicted or that the government's case was in any way tainted by improper or unconstitutional conduct," the United States Attorney's Office would not re-open the prosecution of Plaintiffs' case. Id. In their proposed sur-reply, Plaintiffs argue that "[t]his correspondence is undisputed proof that Defendant Guerrieri violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights well over fifteen years after the criminal trial in question" and that "Defendants can not [sic] argue that their conduct well after the criminal trial in this matter was solely advocatory." Mem. in Support of Pls' Sur-Reply at 4.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that a "surreply may be filed only by leave of Court, and only to address new matters raised in a reply to which a party would otherwise be unable to respond." United States ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d 270, 276-77 (D.D.C. 2002). Here, Plaintiffs' Opposition argues that Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky were not engaged in advocatory functions and their proposed sur-reply seeks to provide additional support for that argument. Plaintiffs' proposed sur-reply therefore does not respond to new matters raised in Defendants' Reply, and is not, strictly speaking, the proper subject of a sur-reply. Moreover, as Defendants point out, Ms. Germond's Affidavit indicates that John Zwerling, counsel for Plaintiffs in this matter, participated in the meetings with the United States Attorney's Office in 1990. Germond Aff. ¶ 7. It therefore appears that the information contained in Plaintiffs' proposed sur-reply may have been readily available to Plaintiffs when they filed their Opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, the Court will address the substance of Plaintiffs' sur-reply, as it does not alter this Court's conclusion that Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for allegedly withholding material exculpatory evidence.
"To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed. 2d. 40 (1988) (citations omitted). To act under color of state law, "the defendant in a § 1983 action [must] have exercised power 'possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 2d 1368 (1941)). Plaintiffs' proposed sur-reply does not strengthen their claims pursuant to § 1983 because, as Defendants note in their Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their sur-reply, Defendant Guerrieri left the employ of the United States Attorney's Office in 1977. Defs' Opp'n to Pls' Mot. for Leave to File Sur-Reply at 4; see also http://www.thelaborers.net/ constitutions/guerrieri_joseph.htm. As a result, at the time of Defendant Guerrieri's 1991 telephone conversation with the United States Attorney's Office, Defendant Guerrieri had been a private citizen, and not a state actor, for fourteen years. Defendant Guerrieri's actions in 1991 therefore cannot form the basis for a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Plaintiffs' proposed sur-reply does not change this Court's conclusion that Count One of Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky in their individual capacities.*fn7
B. Sovereign Immunity Bars Plaintiffs' Constitutional Tort Claims Against the United States and Against Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky in Their Official Capacities
Count One of Plaintiffs' Complaint is also brought against Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky in their official capacities, as well as against the United States. In addition, Counts Two and Three of Plaintiffs' Complaint assert further claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, solely against the United States. However, as Defendants correctly argue, all of these claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
"It is elementary that the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued, and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain that suit." United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349, 63 L.Ed. 2d 1349 (1980) (citation omitted). Moreover, "a waiver of sovereign immunity 'cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.'" Id. (citing United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4, 89 S.Ct. 150, 23 L.Ed. 2d 52 (1969)). In addition, when government officials are sued in their official capacities, they are not personally liable for damages. Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 424 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Rather, "a suit is against the sovereign if the judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain." Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 621, 83 S.Ct. 999, 10 L.Ed. 2d (1963). As a result, "[s]overeign immunity . . . bar[s] suits for money damages against officials in their official capacity absent a specific waiver by the government." Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 103 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs' claim against Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky in their official capacities is thus properly construed as one brought directly against the United States.
However, Plaintiffs cannot pursue a § 1983 action against the United States. The United States has not waived sovereign immunity with respect to actions for damages based on violations of constitutional rights by federal officials, regardless of whether such actions are brought against the United States directly or against the officials in their official capacity. Id. at 103, 104 n.31. Furthermore, although the United States has waived sovereign immunity for certain torts committed by federal employees pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), "the United States simply has not rendered itself liable under [the FTCA] for constitutional tort claims." FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed. 2d (1994). As a result, Plaintiffs cannot pursue their claims for "monetary damages for violations of civil rights . . . guaranteed to Plaintiffs under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America," Compl. ¶ 1, against either the United States directly, or against Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky in their official capacities. The Court shall therefore dismiss Counts One through Three of Plaintiffs' Complaint because, in the absence of a waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain these claims.*fn8
C. Counts Four and Five Must Be Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Counts Four and Five of Plaintiffs' Complaint are brought solely by Plaintiff Zukerberg, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Damien. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that these Counts must be dismissed for a number of reasons; however, the Court shall only address Defendants' argument that Plaintiff Zukerberg has failed to plead the timely exhaustion of administrative remedies required to pursue a claim under the FTCA. See Defs' Mot. to Dismiss at 16-19. The Court agrees with Defendants that this failure necessitates dismissal of Counts Four and Five and, as this failure is jurisdictional in nature, the Court does not reach the other jurisdictional and merits issues raised in Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Counts Four and Five assert claims pursuant to the District of Columbia Survival Act, D.C. Code § 12-101, and the District of Columbia Wrongful Death Act, D.C. Code. § 16-2701.*fn9
"Under District of Columbia law, negligent conduct resulting in death gives rise to two independent rights of action, one under the Wrongful Death Act and one under the Survival Act." Semler v. Psychiatric Inst. of Washington, D.C., Inc., 575 F.2d 922, 924 (D.C. Cir. 1978). The Wrongful Death Act creates "an entirely new right of action in favor of designated beneficiaries" while the Survival Act "preserves and carries forward for the benefit of the deceased's estate the right of action which the deceased would have had, had he not died." Id. at 924-25. Here, Plaintiff Zukerberg's Wrongful Death claim "alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the intentional, unconstitutional negligent and/or wrongful acts of the Defendants, the decedent was falsely convicted of a crime for which he was innocent, and was subsequently imprisoned where he died on December 10, 2002," and further alleges that his next of kin suffered damages as a result. Compl. ¶¶ 47-48. In contrast, Plaintiff Zukerberg's Survival Act claim "alleges that the decedent's right of action for wrongful death and negligent conduct against the Defendants, survives in favor of Plaintiff Paul Zukerberg, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of the deceased." Id. ¶ 50.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff Zukerberg cannot maintain his Wrongful Death and Survival Act claims because he has not alleged the timely exhaustion of administrative remedies required to pursue a claim under the FTCA.*fn10 See Defs' Mot. to Dismiss at 16-19. The Court agrees with Defendants. As discussed above, the FTCA "grants the federal district courts jurisdiction over a certain category of claims for which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity and rendered itself liable." FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 477, 114 S.Ct. 996 (citation omitted). Specifically, the FTCA provides:
[T]he district courts . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, . . . for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff Zukerberg attempts to argue that Counts Four and Five are not grounded in negligence, but rather are "expressly based on the violation of constitutionally protected rights" and that as a result he is "not required to exhaust the administrative remedies of the Federal Tort Claims Act since Plaintiffs' Complaint is not based on tort law." Pls' Opp'n at 17-18. As an initial matter the Court notes that, as discussed above, Plaintiff Zukerberg cannot pursue constitutional tort claims against Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky in their individual capacities because they are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity, nor can he pursue constitutional tort claims against the United States or against Defendants Guerrieri and Linsky in their official capacities because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity with respect to constitutional tort claims. Moreover, Plaintiff Zukerberg's argument that Counts Four and Five are based on constitutional claims is unavailing because those Counts are clearly premised on Plaintiff Zukerberg's allegation that "as a direct and proximate result of the intentional, unconstitutional negligent and/or wrongful acts of the Defendants, the decedent was falsely convicted of a crime for which he was innocent, and was subsequently imprisoned where he died on December 10, 2002." Compl. ¶ 47 (emphasis added). Notwithstanding Plaintiff Zukerberg's attempt to dress up Counts Four and Five in constitutional language, Plaintiff Zukerberg's allegations fit squarely within the ambit of claims cognizable under the FTCA, for which the FTCA provides the exclusive remedy. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 476, 114 S.Ct. 996 ("if a suit is 'cognizable' under § 1346(b) of the FTCA, the FTCA remedy is 'exclusive'); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a).
Furthermore, the FTCA imposes "an administrative-filing requirement, satisfaction of which is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the maintenance of a tort suit against the United States. [The FTCA] requires that a claim be 'presented' to the appropriate federal agency prior to the commencement of a lawsuit." GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 904 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 107, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed. 2d 21 (1993).*fn11
"The FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies." McNeil, 508 U.S. at 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980. Plaintiff Zukerberg has not alleged that before filing suit in this Court he first presented his claims in writing to the federal agency that allegedly caused the injury, rather he has explicitly disavowed such a requirement. See Pls' Opp'n at 18 ("Plaintiffs are not required to exhaust the administrative remedies of the Federal Tort Claims Act since Plaintiffs' Complaint is not based upon tort law."). As such, the Court must dismiss Counts Four and Five of Plaintiffs' Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. See Carter v. McKain, 94 Fed. Appx. 844, 844 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see also Sanchez v. United States, 49 F.3d 1329, 1329-30 (8th Cir. 1995).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court shall grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and shall dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint in its entirety. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us