United States District Court for the Southern District of California denies DOJ’s motion to dismiss first amended complaint in Martin v. NCIS
Here’s the latest filing in Martin v. NCIS — the plaintiff’s opposition to DOJ’s motion to dismiss.
Not surprisingly, DOJ has submitted this Rule 28(j) letter offering its interpretation of Reichle v. Howards‘ implications for the Martin case.
Here’s a link to a Rule 28(j) letter filed with the Ninth Circuit today by Carolyn Martin’s counsel arguing that Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (2012), doesn’t gut the United States District Court’s ruling that NCIS Special Agent Gerald Martin isn’t entitled to qualified immunity.
DOJ today filed this reply brief on behalf of NCIS Special Agent Gerald Martin in his 9th Circuit appeal challenging the United States District Court for the Southern District of California’s ruling rejecting his argument that Carolyn Martin’s suit againt him must be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.
Here’s a FRAP 28(j) letter filed with the 9th Circuit by Carolyn Martin’s counsel. She is the appellee in a 9th Circuit case in which NCIS Special Agent Gerald Martin is seeking reversal of the district court’s ruling that he isn’t entitled to qualified immunity as to Carolyn Martin’s First Amendment Bivens action.
Here’s the first supplemental complaint filed by plaintiff’s counsel today in Martin v. NCIS, No. 3:10-cv-01879-WQH-MDD, in the United States District Court for the Sourthern District of California.
Here’s an order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California allowing other aspects of the Martin v. NCIS case to proceed while NCIS Special Agent Gerald Martin appeals the earlier ruling that he isn’t entitled to qualified immunity for the Bivens claim against him for allegedly violating Carolyn Martin’s First Amendment rights.
h/t Gene Fidell
Not surprisingly, the case of Martin v. NCIS, No. 11-56717 “will not be selected for inclusion in the Mediation Program.” [9th Circuit order here] Accordingly, the appeal will now proceed of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California’s 3 August 2011 ruling allowing portions of Carolyn Martin’s suit against NCIS and other officials at MCRD San Diego to proceed.
The case of Martin v. NCIS, in which a civilian defense investigator with an extensive military justice practice is suing various Marine Corps and Department of the Navy officials for allegedly interfering with her defense work and for engaging in a harassment campaign against her, is currently on hold while one of the defendants appeals the federal district court judge’s ruling that claims against him aren’t barred by the qualified immunity doctrine. The Ninth Circuit today ordered that counsel for the parties engage in a telephone settlement assessment conference on 12 January 2012 “to discuss whether this case is appropriate for participation in the Mediation Program.” (My prediction: no.) The Ninth Circuit revised the briefing schedule “as follows: appellant shall file an opening brief on or before February 13, 2012; appellee shall file an answering brief on or before March 14, 2012; appellant may file an optional reply brief on or before March 28, 2012.”
For Ninth Circuit purposes, the case is captioned Martin v. Martin, No. 11-56717.
Here is an interesting piece from North County Times about the lawsuit involving Carolyn Martin.
Government admissions in the civil rights trial of a Southern California woman suing the Naval Criminal Investigative Service for harassment have sparked questions over whether the law enforcement agency overstepped its authority and engaged in domestic spying.
CAAFlog has posted and commented on this case previously.
Following its ruling on dispositive motions, which we discussed here, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has granted the defendants’ request in Martin v. NCIS, 3:10-cv-01879-WQH –AJB, to push the deadline for filing an answer back to 2 October.
Judge Hayes of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California today issued this ruling on the dispositive motions in Martin v. NCIS, a case involving limitations on a private investigator’s involvement in courts-martial at MCRD San Diego, among other issues. Judge Hayes granted motions to dismiss in part and denied motions to dismiss in part.
The ruling allows key portions of Ms. Martin’s case to go forward. We’ve previously discussed the litigation in this case concerning whether Ms. Martin is banned from the MCRD San Diego courtroom. The United States indicated that it would allow Ms. Martin to access the courtroom in the same manner as other members of the general public. Judge Hayes ruled that this voluntary concession doesn’t moot Ms. Martin’s claim, allowing her First Amendment claim for interference with right to access to judicial proceedings to go forward.
Judge Hayes also allowed Ms. Martin to proceed with a First Amendment claim against NCIS and the Secretary of the Navy for allegedly retaliating against her for successful criminal defense work in court-martial cases. Judge Hayes also allowed a Bivens claim against a specific NCIS agent to proceed and rejected a qualified immunity bar to the claim against the individual agent.
Judge Hayes ruled for the defendants on two claims — dismissing a Fourth Amendment claim against the individual NCIS agent and dismissing a Fifth Amendment claim for unreasonable interference with employment.
We’ll continue to follow the case.