judyrecords
search tips
740 million+
United States Court Cases

District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals Record

PIERRE BOSTIC V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case Information: 05-CV-0041
Short Caption:PIERRE BOSTIC V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAClassification:Appeals - Civil - Other Civil
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:CAB6592-04Filed Date:01/12/2005

Opening Event Date:01/12/2005Case Status:Closed
Record Completed:03/01/2005Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:10/04/2005
Argued/Submitted:04/26/2006
Disposition:Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:09/25/2006

Party Information
Appellate RoleParty NameIFPAttorney(s)Arguing AttorneyE-Filer
AppellantPierre Bostic N
Robert Daniel Scott YN
AppelleeDistrict of ColumbiaN
Edward E. SchwabNY
Mary L. WilsonYY

Events
Event DateStatusDescriptionResult
01/12/2005NOTICE OF APPEAL
02/08/2005 On consideration of the notice of appeal filed in this case on Janauary 12, 2005, and it appearing that no transcript is needed for this appeal, it is ORDERED that a briefing order will be issued upon the filing in this court, by the Clerk of the Superior Court, the record index as required by D.C. App. R. 11(b)(3)(A). (BY: GP)
03/01/2005RECORD INDEX
03/01/2005RECORD COMPLETED
03/03/2005 It appearing that the complete record on appeal has been filed with this court, it is ORDERED that appellant's brief and the appendix shall be filed within 40 days from the date of this order, and appellee's brief shall be filed within 30 days thereafter. See D.C. App. R. 30, 31. (BY: GP)
04/12/2005APPELLANT'S BRIEF (NO APPENDIX)
04/13/2005APPELLANT'S MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MOTION to allow appeal to proceed on the original record with out an appendix
04/14/2005TMC - Aplt's motion to proceed on appeal without appendix
04/15/2005 On consideration of appellant's motion to waive the appendix requirement and it appearing that appellant has filed his brief, it is ORDERED that appellant's motion is denied and appellant shall, within 20 days from the date of this order file an appendix that complies with D.C. App. R. 30. The brief of appellee shall be due 30 days after appellant files the appendix. Failure of appellant to comply with this requirement shall subject this appeal to dismissal without further notice. (PER CURIAM)
05/04/2005APPENDIX
06/16/2005 On consideration of this court's order of April 15, 2005, directing appellant to file the appendix within 20 days from the date of the order, and it appearing that the brief of appellee was due to be filed on or before June 8, 2005, and has not yet been lodged, it is ORDERED that appellee shall within 20 days from the date of this order submit the brief, accompanied by a motion for leave to file out of time. The motion should set forth good cause for the failure either to timely file the brief_or to request an extension of time within which to do so. Failure to comply with this order shall subject this appeal_to being scheduled for consideration on the record on appeal and appellant's brief without further notice. (BY: GP)
09/19/2005APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF
09/19/2005RECEIVED - aple's brief
10/04/2005 On consideration of appellee's motion for leave to late file the lodged brief, to which no opposition has been filed, it is ORDERED that appellee's motion is granted and the lodged brief is filed. It is FURTHER ORDERED that this appeal shall be scheduled for consideration before a merits division as soon as the calendar permits. (BY: GP)
10/04/2005APPELLEE'S BRIEF
10/04/2005BRIEFS COMPLETED
10/20/2005FINAL SCREENING - REGULAR CALENDAR
12/30/2005LETTER TO COUNSEL/PARTY RE FUTURE CALENDARING 12/30 - Scott - Wilson
01/05/2006LETTER FROM COUNSEL/PARTY RE FUTURE CALENDARING
03/03/2006CALENDAR NOTICE SENT
04/26/2006FiledACTION - Argued / Submitted
04/26/2006ARGUED before Judges Ruiz, Fisher, Nebeker Robert Daniel Scott, Esq. for appellant Mary L. Wilson, Esq. for appellee
05/02/2006ORDER - It is ORDERED, sua sponte, that the parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following: 1) Is there a cooperation agreement between the Metropolitan Police Department and the U.S. Capitol Police pursuant to D.C. Code 5-133.17? If so, the parties are requested to provide the court with a copy and discuss whether its terms are relevant to interpretation of the District's liability for the acts of US Capitol Police officers pursuant to their actions under D.C. Code 5-301(a). 2) Was the trafic arrest in this case authorized by 2 USC 1967(a)(4), without regard to the provisions of D.C. Code 5-133.17 and 5-301? It is FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for appellant shall inform the court in writing of the substance and status of appellant's claim with the U.S. Capitol Police, as mentioned at oral argument. It is FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's supplemental brief shall be filed within 15 calendar days of the date of this order, with appellee's supplemental brief due within 10 calendar days thereafter. The United States is invited to participate in this case as amicus curiae with any filing as amicus due within 15 calendar days of the date of this order. (RZ,FI,NE)
05/17/2006STATEMENT- from aple as amicue curiae
05/17/2006APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF/MEMORANDUM
05/30/2006APPELLEE'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF/MEMORANDUM
08/31/2006AFFIRMED Opinion (Ruiz, Fisher, Nebeker) and Judgment affirming trial court's dismissal of appellant's complaint against the District of Columbia.
09/25/2006MANDATE ISSUED