Case law

Washington v. Weber

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2022

And they certainly do not establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. … He forays into irrelevant subject areas like qualified immunity, Bivens claims, and due process rights.57 From his complaint, it appears that Washington seeks prospective injunctive relief “to stop the constitutional

Applebaum v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

626 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1986

moving party establishes that no genuine issue exists as to any of the material facts in the case, and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … He clearly understands himself to be bound by the release and argues that its scope was not intended to reach his claim for work loss benefits.

Landis v. Wilson

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2021

Specifically, sovereign immunity constitutes a jurisdictional bar to claims against the United States and its agencies, unless Congress has specifically waived such immunity. FDIC v. … Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 72 (2001) (“If a federal prisoner in a BOP facility alleges a constitutional deprivation, he may bring a Bivens claim against the offending individual officer, subject to the defense of qualified immunity

Johnson v. Tritt

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2021

However, in adopting the “more-specific-provision-rule” established in County of Sacramento v. … enjoy sovereign and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.”

Dempsey v. Bucknell University

76 F. Supp. 3d 565 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2015

Dempsey contends that they clearly demonstrate that Ms. … Dempsey has established a defamation claim based on these statements.

Eastern Carrier Corporation v. United States

31 F. Supp. 232 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1939

There is nothing to justify rejection of these qualifying words. … The record before us clearly supports the findings and order of the Commission.

Thomas v. Harrisburg City Police Department

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2021

Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately state a claim for failure to render medical care, it does not reach the Individual Defendants’ arguments that, in the alternative, they are protected by qualified … immunity.

Holt v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State Police Dept

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2020

Thus, “[hligh ranking government officials are generally entitled to limited immunity from being deposed concerning matters about which they have no unique personal knowledge.” Brennan v. … The Third Circuit has yet to establish a bright-line rule for classifying individuals as “high-ranking.” See Sensient Colors, 649 F.Supp 2d at 316.

Orner

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 26, 2026

They announced it to someone less qualified than me in running the hygiene department. … Subsequently, HR offered Plaintiff a severance package, allegedly stating, “[w]ell, clearly you’re miserable here.” /d. at 211:20-211:23.

Kenyon v. Gutierrez

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2024

Rather, Kenyon clearly takes issue with Dr. Gutierrez’s professional medical decisions. For example, he maintains that, instead of treating his abdominal pain with prescription painkillers for several days, Dr. … was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”93 Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, medical departments, or private medical companies generally do not qualify

Solovey v. Wyoming Valley Health Care System—Hospital

396 F. Supp. 2d 534 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2005

FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT CLAIM Plaintiff argues that the language of the FMLA and relevant regulatory provisions clearly establish her right to use earned but unused paid vacation for the dates of June 22, 26 and 27, 2005 … Further, the FMLA specifically states that rights established under the FMLA “shall not be diminished by any collective bargaining agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 2652 (b).

Rosenbaum v. Larson

552 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 1982

Burns, 427 U.S. 347 , 96 S.Ct. 2673 , 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1975), the Supreme Court established the criteria upon which the defendants rely. … Rosenbaum was furloughed because the cutbacks in managerial positions necessitated a closer look at the best qualified personnel to fill available positions.

Lee v. Carlson

564 F. Supp. 1048 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1983

The question which is to be decided in this case is whether the facts are established by the record or whether some dispute remains as to what occurred and whether the security provided has been sufficient. … Clearly the actions of the prison officials in the instant case are not comparable to the thoughtless insensitivity of the prison officials in the Little ease.

HOLT v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2020

Thus, “[hligh ranking government officials are generally entitled to limited immunity from being deposed concerning matters about which they have no unique personal knowledge.” Brennan v. … The Third Circuit has yet to establish a bright-line rule for classifying individuals as “high-ranking.” See Sensient Colors, 649 F.Supp 2d at 316.

United States v. Hively

547 F. Supp. 318 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 1982

United States, 394 F.2d 216, 219 (8th Cir. 1968) (prosecution failed to offer to establish good faith), cert, denied, 397 U.S. 1013 , 90 S.Ct. 1245 , 25 L.Ed.2d 427 (1979). … Clearly, that situation is quite different from the instant one. In this case, the necessity of limiting instructions was never brought to the court’s attention.

Taveras-Lopez v. Reno

127 F. Supp. 2d 598 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2000

In this case, Congress clearly intended to preclude waiver of deportation for a certain class of convicted felons. … Subparagraph (E) pertains to aliens involved in serious criminal activity but who have received immunity from prosecution.

Dukes v. Mohl

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 25, 2022

They also claim that sovereign immunity bars Dukes’ official capacity claims. … actions “against the State itself.”52 States may waive this immunity if they choose, but Pennsylvania has explicitly not waived its immunity with respect to claims brought under Section 1983.53 There are two exceptions

Cooks v. Bradley

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2021

His entire claim is based on the following statement: “constitution of the state of New Columbia Article 1 Bill of Right Sec. 12—show something (as language) essential esp. to establishing my stay in prison is 1 Rule … However, when seeking to impose liability due to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the appropriate remedy is a civil rights action.

Pettis v. Everhart

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2020

To establish a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the United States Constitution. Mark v. … [T]he plaintiff’s claim that he is being deprived of access to the courts is clearly foreclosed by Bounds v. Smith.”); Urbano v.

Gregor v. Howard

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2021

procedure is clearly shown to be inadequate to prevent irreparable harm”); Carling v. … When seeking to impose liability due to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the appropriate remedy is a civil rights action. See Leamer, 288 F.3d at 540.