Eleventh Circuit: Nope. Still No Discovery.

A couple months ago, the Eleventh Circuit denied my motion to transfer my case regarding the constitutionality of the TSA’s nude body scanners to district court for evidentiary hearings. They did so without comment. I followed up by asking them to do the only other thing they can do under their rules to allow me discovery, which is to appoint a “special master” (basically, a discovery judge). The Eleventh Circuit today denied this, again without comment.

The court was nice enough to append this load with a cherry, denying the TSA’s request to make me sign a non-disclosure before receipt of copyrighted materials, and requesting additional briefing on whether the TSA should provide me with SSI and non-classified summaries of classified documents. The last thing the TSA wants to do is hand me SSI, so the mere possibility of that is making someone in Arlington uncomfortable at the moment.

This petition will now continue based only on the record produced by the TSA and what I can attach to my brief as an appendix. This far cry from due process can’t be appealed at the moment, but it is possible that I could raise the issue on appeal if (lol) the Court decides that the nude body scanners are constitutional.

Corbett v. TSA – Order (.pdf)

9 thoughts on “Eleventh Circuit: Nope. Still No Discovery.

Add yours

  1. The only jurisdiction you can file is in the Court of Appeals. Why are you wasting your time in the lower courts?

    1. I’m in the Court of Appeals already, asking them to appoint someone — a district court, a special master, etc. — to deal with fact gathering. See 28 U.S.C. § 2347(b)(3), Fed R. App. P., Rule 48.

  2. In other words, they’re ensuring you can’t get any evidence in to make a case. Since you have no discovery options what’s TSA scared about you seeing?

  3. Restrictive Comparative case law used by the 11th will leave you with nothing! That’s why they have it, keeping Fl, Ga, Ala, in the stone age, many times having no case law of their own. But on the other hand, the US Supreme loves to over turn the 11th’s bungles, Obama care, Fla house boats in Palm Beach Co., “whats a house boat” etc.

    Elkins v Federal Aviation Administration, 8:12CV2009 US District court Tampa, FOIA

    Unwarranted Surveillance, use of (b)(6), (7)(C), (7)(E) by a regulatory agency not involved in a investigation, records not compiled for law enforcement use.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: