Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shade v. United States Cong.

United States District Court, District of Columbia

April 19, 2013

ALBERT SHADE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES CONGRESS, et al., Defendants

Page 44

ALBERT SHADE, Plaintiff, Pro se, Eufaula, AL.

MAGGIE HILL, Plaintiff, Pro se, Eufaula, AL.

HUSTON SMITH, Plaintiff, Pro se, Eufaula, AL.

CARRIE SMITH, Plaintiff, Pro se, Georgetown, GA.

MARY L. SMITH, Plaintiff, Pro se, Elba, AL.

MARY F. DANIELS, Plaintiff, Pro se, Elba, AL.

NINENETTE BRUTLEY, Plaintiff, Pro se, Eufaula, AL.

For CONGRESS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Defendants: Mary Beth Walker, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC.

For GOVERNMENT, THOMAS JAMES VILSACK, U.S.D.A., Defendants: Peter Rolf Maier, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Civil Division, Washington, DC.

OPINION

Page 45

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Albert Shade initiated this pro se action on behalf of himself and six other plaintiffs, apparently seeking redress for alleged discrimination by the United States Department of Agriculture (" USDA" ). [1] The four named defendants are " Congress," " Government," the U.S. House of Representatives, and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. This matter is before the Court on the defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaints under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration of the parties' papers ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.