Buono

Buono v. Norton

Good Law
212 F. Supp. 2d 1202·2002 WL 1759578·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13634
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 24, 2002EDCV01216RTSGLXCalifornia8,016 words

Opinion

Opinion

Timlin, J.

ORDER 1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS FRANK BUONO’S AND ALLEN SCHWARTZ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND 2) DENYING DEFENDANTS GALE NORTON’S, JOHN REYNOLDS’, AND MARY MARTIN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The court, Judge Robert J. Timlin, has read and considered Plaintiffs Frank Buo-no (“Buono”) and Allen Schwartz (“Schwartz”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)’s Motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56 (“Rule 56”); Defendants Gail Norton (“Norton”), John Reynolds (“Reynolds”), and Mary Martin (“Martin”) (collectively, “the government” ’s opposition; and Plaintiffs’ reply. The court also has read and considered the government’s Motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56; Plaintiffs’ opposition; and the government’s reply. Based on such consideration, the court concludes as follows:

I.

BACKGROUND

Buono filed a Complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief on March 22, 2001, alleging that the government violated his rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. On October 26, 2001, a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed, adding Schwartz as a eo-Plaintiff. Both Plaintiffs and the government…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.