AULETA v. FISCHER, 09-CV-6612L. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. New York
Number: infdco20120413918
Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 12, 2012
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. By letter dated April 2, 2012 (Dkt. #260), counsel for defendants presented this Court with facts and circumstances that have occurred relative to plaintiff, subsequent to this Court's orders denying preliminary relief (Dkts. #167, #200). Defendants have also provided the Court with a copy of a memorandum from a Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, dated most recently, March 28, 2012, which summarized in detail the Departmen
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. By letter dated April 2, 2012 (Dkt. #260), counsel for defendants presented this Court with facts and circumstances that have occurred relative to plaintiff, subsequent to this Court's orders denying preliminary relief (Dkts. #167, #200). Defendants have also provided the Court with a copy of a memorandum from a Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, dated most recently, March 28, 2012, which summarized in detail the Department..
More
DECISION AND ORDER
DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge.
By letter dated April 2, 2012 (Dkt. #260), counsel for defendants presented this Court with facts and circumstances that have occurred relative to plaintiff, subsequent to this Court's orders denying preliminary relief (Dkts. #167, #200). Defendants have also provided the Court with a copy of a memorandum from a Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, dated most recently, March 28, 2012, which summarized in detail the Department of Corrections' agreements concerning certain aspects of plaintiff's practice of his religion. In view of this detailed memo, it appears that some of plaintiff's several complaints may well now be moot.
In any event, in light of the apparent change of circumstances that have occurred, should the Second Circuit decline to enter an order on the matters in this case, this Court would certainly be amenable to entertain an application by either party to reconsider its prior orders, should the case be remanded to this Court by the Second Circuit. It may well be, that in light of the change of circumstances and certain concessions by the defendants, the parties may be able to enter into a stipulated order for entry of judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
