Second Circuit Issues Decision in Shinnecock Fishing Rights Case

Non-decision, more like. Here are the materials in Silva v. Farrish:

Where’s this guy when you need him?

Opinion here. Excerpt from the court’s syllabus:

We hold that Ex parte Young applies to the plaintiffs’ fishing-rights claims against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) officials— but not against the DEC itself—because the plaintiffs allege an ongoing violation of federal law and seek prospective relief against state officials. We also hold that the plaintiffs have Article III standing to seek prospective relief and that Younger abstention no longer bars Silva from seeking prospective relief because his criminal proceedings have ended. We therefore conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the DEC officials on the plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination claims because there is no evidence in the record that would permit an inference of discriminatory intent.

Lower court materials here.

State Court Rejects New York State’s Effort to Stop Shinnecock Billboard Construction

Here is the unpublished opinion in Commissioner of the New York State Department of Transportation v. Polite (N.Y. S. Ct.):

Opinion

Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Shinnecock Members’ Off-Reservation Fishing Rights Suit [again]

Here are the updated materials in Silva v. Farrish (E.D. N.Y.):

83-6 Suffolk County Motion for Summary Judgment

83-10 Opposition

83-12 Reply

84-8 New York Motion for Summary Judgment

84-13 Opposition

84-14 Reply

89 Magistrate Report

Prior post here.

Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Shinnecock Members’ Off-Reservation Fishing Rights Suit

Here are the materials in Silva v. Farrish (E.D. N.Y.):

54-3 county defendants motion to dismiss

54-4 reply

54-5 plaintiffs opposition

56-3 state defendants motion to dismiss

56-6 plaintiffs opposition

56-8 reply

63 magistrate report

Prior post here.

UPDATE:

64 objections

65 Suffolk County

Response

66 Silva Reply

Shinnecock Cigarette Trader’s Demand for Return of Confiscated Smokes Rejected

Here are the materials in Smith v. Fredrico (E.D. N.Y.):

DCT Order Adopting R&R

Smith Motion for PI

Suffolk County Opposition

Smith Reply

MJ R&R Recommending Denial of Motion

Smith Objection to R&R

Suffolk County Response to Objection