Section 1983 – Page 5

On or about December 24, 2011, plaintiff Cheung Yin Sun, along with two other playing partners, plaintiffs Long Mei Fang and Zong Yang Lei, deposited approximately $1.6 million dollars in shared front money with defendant Foxwoods Resorts Casino in order to play Mini-Baccarat (Exhibit A, 1). Plaintiffs won approximately $1.148 million in chips that evening while playing Mini-Baccarat on the graveyard shift. Plaintiffs won the $1.148 million honestly by using an advantage play strategy known as “edge sorting,” which will be described in more detail below. However defendants Foxwoods and Foxwoods Management refused to redeem the chips/winnings because they accused plaintiffs of cheating.

Updated materials:

22 Connecticut Motion to Dismiss

31-1 Pequot Motion to Dismiss

Docket entry 37:

ORDER granting 31 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 20 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. no. [22] ) and Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 31 ) are both granted absent objection because the plaintiffs have failed to take the necessary steps to establish the court’s personal jurisdiction as to any of the defendants. Accordingly the case is dismissed. SO ORDERED by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/29/2015. (Lewis, D) (Entered: 06/01/2015)

Federal Court Refuses to Allow Blue Lake Rancheria to Add Section 1983 Claims in FUTA Tax Dispute

July 28, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Morgenstern (E.D. Cal.):

67 Blue Lake Motion to Amend

69 California Opposition

70 Blue Lake Reply

72 DCT Order Denying Motion

Blue Lake had prevailed in the Ninth Circuit before.

Section 1983 Suit against City of Logan, OH Survives Motion to Dismiss — Alleged Racial Harassment by City Office of Native-Owned Business

April 18, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Great Elk Dancer for his Elk Nation v. Miller (S.D. Ohio):

17 MJ R&R

25 DCT order

An excerpt:

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil rights action under 43 U.S.C. § 1983. In a nutshell, Plaintiff asserts Defendants arbitrarily and capriciously interfered with his business operations and targeted him for harassment because he is a Native American, thereby violating his federal constitutional rights. On August 19, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Second Initial Screening Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) in which he recommended that the Court allow this lawsuit to proceed against Defendants Mayor J. Martin Irvine, Fire Chief Brian Robertson, Officer Josh Mowery, and City Services Director Steve Shaw (collectively, “City Defendants”). R & R 11, ECF No. 17. He also recommended that the Court dismiss the remaining Defendants. Id. In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Defendants’ motions to strike Plaintiffs first amended complaint. Id. at 11 (denying ECF Nos. 9 & 13). The City Defendants filed timely objections to the R & R. ECF No. 19. The Court now considers those objections.

Sixth Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Michigan Gaming Control Act

January 16, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are (some of) the materials in Arabo v. Greektown Casino:

Arabo Brief

MGM Brief

Michigan Gaming Control Board Brief

CA6 Unpublished opinion

Section 1983 Complaint against Red Cliff Housing Authority Dismissed

July 24, 2013July 24, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in DePerry v. Deragon (W.D. Wis.):

DCT Dismissing Complaint

DePerry Complaint

Defendants Motion to Dismiss

DePerry Opposition

Defendants Reply

An excerpt:

Asserting a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), Raymond DePerry alleges in his amended complaint defendants fired him as the Executive Director of the Red Cliff Chippewa Housing Authority (“the Authority”) as a result of their conspiracy to interfere with the civil rights of the Authority’s tenants. Defendants, the Authority’s seven-member Board of Commissioners, responded with the instant motion to dismiss that complaint for failure to state a legally-cognizable claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court finds that DePerry’s amended complaint contains no allegation or inference of a conspiracy to deprive anyone of civil rights, nor of any class-based animus held by defendants, and will therefore grant defendants’ motion to dismiss.