Ladeairous v. Goldsmith

8 Citing cases

  1. Ladeairous v. Sessions

    884 F.3d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 2018)   Cited 6 times

    28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).The government and the court-appointed amicus agree that Ladeairous accumulated two strikes before filing the instant case in district court: namely, Ladeairous v. Goldsmith , Civil No. 13-673, 2015 WL 1787297 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2015) (dismissed for frivolousness and for failure to state a claim), and Ladeairous v. Pearson , Civil No. 12-307, 2013 WL 5962932 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 2013) (same). They dispute whether the district court should have counted a third dismissal, Ladeairous v. Attorney General of New York , Civil No. 14–250 (N.D.N.Y. July 8, 2014) ("Ladeairous NDNY "), as a strike.

  2. Ladeairous v. Goldsmith

    610 F. App'x 315 (4th Cir. 2015)

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ladeairous v. Goldsmith, No. 3:13-cv-00673-JAG (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

  3. Huffman v. Fuller

    7:24-cv-00438 (W.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2024)

    For the reasons stated, Huffman fails to allege that the defendant jail officials, by refusing to provide materials in response to his request under the Federal or Virginia FOIA laws, deprived him of any protected right that is actionable under § 1983. Ladeairous v. Goldsmith, No. 3:13CV673, 2015 WL 1787297, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2015), aff'd, 610 Fed.Appx. 315 (4th Cir. 2015) (unpublished). Therefore, I will summarily dismiss this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), as legally frivolous.

  4. Roman v. Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

    Civil Action 7:23-cv-00749 (W.D. Va. May. 22, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    The Fourth Circuit has previously stated that the VSB “is, by statute, an arm of the Supreme Court of Virginia[.]” Konan v. Sengel, 239 Fed.Appx. 780, 781 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Ladeairous v. Goldsmith, No. 3:13-cv-673, 2015 WL 1787297, at *4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2015) (“The Virginia State Bar is an arm of the state and therefore immune from suit by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment.”).

  5. Washburn v. Blackville Police Dep't

    C. A. 1:24-511-MGL-SVH (D.S.C. Apr. 11, 2024)

    The federal FOIA statute requires federal agencies to make their internal records available to the public upon request, but does not apply to state or local agencies. See Rimmer v. Holder, 700 F.3d 246, 258 (6th Cir. 2012) (noting that FOIA applies to federal and not state agencies); Ladeairous v. Goldsmith, No. 3:13-cv-673, 2015 WL 1787297, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2015); Hamilton v. Newby, No. 3:19-CV-372, 2020 WL 972752, at *5 (E.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2020) (noting that FOIA does not apply to state or local entities and specifically noting that it did not apply to Henrico County), aff'd Hamilton v. Azzarone, 826 Fed.Appx. 304 (4th Cir. 2020). 2. Blackville Town Hall and BPD Are Not Persons Because the federal FOIA statute does not apply to Defendants, the undersigned liberally construes the complaint as referencing Plaintiffs' rights under state FOIA, as the complaint is not specific as to which FOIA statute it references.

  6. Hamilton v. Newby

    Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-372 (E.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    FOIA, however, does not apply to state or local entities. See Ladeairous v. Goldsmith, No. 3:13-cv-673, 2015 WL 1787297, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2015). Hamilton alleges that the County fails to respond to her information requests, but FOIA does not apply to the County.

  7. Allen v. Mine

    1:19cv750 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    This principle applies with equal force to State Bar disciplinary proceedings." Ladeairous v. Goldsmith, No. 3:13cv673, 2015 WL 1787297, at *4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2015) (unpublished) (quoting Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 85-86 (1981) (internal citations omitted)), aff'd, 610 F. App'x 315 (4th Cir. 2015). The Fourth Circuit has held that "[a plaintiff] lack[s] any constitutional right to require a State Bar to process a grievance or conduct an investigation."

  8. Ladeairous v. Lynch

    Civ. No. 15-0954 (UNA) (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2015)

    Plaintiff has accumulated three strikes. See Ladeairous v. Goldsmith, No. 3:13-cv-673, 2015 WL 1787297 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2015) (dismissing complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A), aff'd, 610 F. App'x 315 (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam); Ladeairous v. Attorney General of the State of New York, No. 9:14-cv-0250 (N.D.N.Y. July 8, 2014) (dismissing complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)), aff'd, 592 F. App'x 47 (2d Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. July 21, 2015) (No. 15-5293); Ladeairous v. Pearson, No. 3:12-cv-307, 2013 WL 5962932 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 2013) (dismissing complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A), aff'd, 553 F. App'x 298 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 117 (2014). Under these circumstances, plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis only if he is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury."