PELLEGRINO et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION et al

Filing 196

ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS GRANTED IN PART, & PLFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED IN PART, ETC. THIS COURT'S ORDER OF 4/16/2014 IS AMENDED IN ORDER TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLFF'S CLAIMS OF RETALIA TORY & MALICIOUS PROSECUTION UNDER THE FIRST & FOURTH AMENDMENTS AS TO DEFTS ABDUL-MALIK & LABBEE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THOSE DEFTS & PLFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS TO THOSE CLAIMS, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE IS DENIED.SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 8/11/14. 8/13/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED AND MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NADINE PELLEGRINO AND
HARRY WALDMAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, et. al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 09-5505

ORDER
AND NOW, this

11th

day of August, 2014, upon

consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No.
178) and Plaintiff’s Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration and
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No.
182), Plaintiff’s Exhibits (Doc. No. 183, 184, 185, 186) and
Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. No. 192), as well as Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File (Doc. No. 191), it is hereby ORDERED that
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED in part, and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED in part.
This Court’s Order of April 16, 2014 is amended in order to
grant summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims of retaliatory and
malicious prosecution under the First and Fourth Amendments as to
Defendants Abdul-Malik and Labbee. It is further ORDERED that
judgment shall be ENTERED in favor of those Defendants and
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 40) is dismissed

with prejudice as to those claims.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit, within
thirty (30) days of entry of this Order, a concise1 Memorandum of
Law no more than twenty five (25) pages in length, written in
twelve(12)-point font for text and ten (10)- point font for
footnotes, outlining Plaintiff’s position regarding Defendant
TSA’s withholding of 90 documents under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2),
(b)(5), and (b)(6). Defendant TSA shall submit a reply, if any,
within fourteen (14) days of Plaintiff’s filing.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
File is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

s/J. Curtis Joyner
J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.

1

Plaintiff has been admonished numerous time by the Court for her
needlessly voluminous submissions and disregard for Court-imposed deadlines.
See, e.g., (Doc. Nos. 33, 93). In fact, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
was filed in two parts totaling over 250 pages exclusive of exhibits. (Doc.
Nos. 182, 188). As a result, the Court has no choice but to impose page limits
on Plaintiff’s future filings. The Court also warns Plaintiff that it may
dismiss a FOIA claim based on a plaintiff’s failure to timely submit a filing.
Idema v. United States Department of State, No. 05-1334, 2007 WL 2258543
(D.D.C. Aug. 6, 2007)(dismissing FOIA claim based on plaintiffs’ failure to
file a response by extended deadline).