Cowden v. U.S. Department of Labor

5 Citing cases

  1. Tyson v. United States

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-CV-00058-GNS (W.D. Ky. Jan. 22, 2020)

    The contract here "outlines [the medical professionals'] major responsibilities [but] does not prescribe how [the medical professionals] must perform those responsibilities." (Def.'s Mot. Dismiss Ex. B); see Zion, 913 F. Supp. 2d at 384 (citing Cowden v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, No. 04-CV-53-JMH, 2005 WL 1691036, at *12 (E.D. Ky. July 18, 2005) (holding that because the alleged employee entity hired and retained its own staff, maintained responsibility for the administration and operation of the government building, and the government only dictated that the entity abide by broad guidelines, the entity was an independent contractor)). The contract here likewise "does not provide a procedural guideline or a detailed manual for the work."

  2. C.H. v. United States

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-CV-00017-GNS (W.D. Ky. Oct. 15, 2019)

    The contract here "outlines [the medical professionals'] major responsibilities [but] does not prescribe how [the medical professionals] must perform those responsibilities." (Def.'s Mot. Dismiss Ex. A); see Zion, 913 F. Supp. 2d at 384 (citing Cowden v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, No. Civ. A. 04-CV-53-JMH, 2005 WL 1691036, at *1 (E.D. Ky. July 18, 2005) (holding that because the alleged employee entity hired and retained its own staff, maintained responsibility for the administration and operation of the government building, and the government only dictated that the entity abide by broad guidelines, the entity was an independent contractor). Also the contract here "does not provide a procedural guideline or a detailed manual for the work."

  3. Warren v. Sawyer

    9:15-CV-0591 (GTS/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2016)   Cited 9 times
    Dismissing Section 1983 claims for money damages against the NYSDOCCS as barred by the Eleventh Amendment

    Moreover, several courts, including this one, have stated that the prison mailbox rule does not apply to non-prisoner litigants. See Pickering-George v. Cuomo, No. 1:10-CV-0771 (GTS/DEP), 2011 WL 1832560, at *4 n.7 (N.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011) (Houston v. Lack's prison mailbox rule does not apply to non-prisoner litigants); Cowden v. U.S. Dep't of Labor., No. 04-CV-0053, 2005 WL 1691036, at *8 n.10 (E.D. Ky. July 18, 2005) (same); accord Gabriel v. United States, No. 14-CV-3022, 2015 WL 1651828, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 10, 2015). In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that because plaintiff was not a prisoner at the time he filed this action, he is not entitled to the benefit of the prison mailbox rule.

  4. Zion v. United States

    913 F. Supp. 2d 379 (W.D. Ky. 2012)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that GSA's hiring and supervisory decisions were discretionary in nature

    What the contract does not provide is also illustrative of the relationship between DL Joint Venture and GSA. For example, although the contract outlines DL Joint Venture's major responsibilities, it does not prescribe how DL Joint Ventures must perform those responsibilities. See, e.g., Cowden v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 2005 WL 1691036, at *12 (E.D.Ky. July 18, 2005) (holding that because the alleged employee entity hired and retained its own staff, maintained responsibility for the administration and operation of the government building, and the government only dictated that the entity abide by broad guidelines, the entity was an independent contractor). So, while the contract outlines standards for performance, it does not provide a procedural guideline or a detailed manual for the work.

  5. Zion v. United States

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-00529-H (W.D. Ky. Dec. 20, 2012)

    What the contract does not provide is also illustrative of the relationship between DL Joint Venture and GSA. For example, although the contract outlines DL Joint Venture's major responsibilities, it does not prescribe how DL Joint Ventures must perform those responsibilities. See, e.g., Cowden v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 2005 WL 1691036, at *12 (E.D. Ky. July 18, 2005)(holding that because the alleged employee entity hired and retained its own staff, maintained responsibility for the administration and operation of the government building, and the government only dictated that the entity abide by broad guidelines, the entity was an independent contractor). So, while the contract outlines standards for performance, it does not provide a procedural guideline or a detailed manual for the work.