Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,574 results
0.35s
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2019
with the Court's Memorandum Opinion (Doc. 60 at 1), his current filings do not directly take issue with the Court's conclusion that, even if Plaintiff did suffer a First Amendment violation, Defendant was entitled to qualified … immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownRivera v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2020
,” and thus she would need to allege facts tending to show the non-applicability of immunity. … As the second amended complaint in its current form does not clearly set forth any claims or cohesive factual averments, dismissal is warranted.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2020
. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) if “the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” … Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or a “clearly baseless” or “fantastic or delusional” factual
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2020
Dated: September 1, 2020 2 Having concluded that dismissal is warranted for other reasons, the court does not address SCP Defendants’ administrative exhaustion or qualified … immunity arguments.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2023
July 22, 2004), the federal government has immunity from claims brought under the PHRA. … Absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, which is not present here, the United States has immunity from claims brought under the PHRA.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2024
responsible for the alleged constitutional violations, even though such identification is clearly required by DC-ADM 804. … Defendants did not, for example, assert a different defense (e.g., lack of personal jurisdiction or qualified immunity) that was previously available but not raised in their first motion to dismiss.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2022
through administrative remedy request number 1060225-F1.4 Hannigan cited his age (49 at the time) and medical conditions, which included “diabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, obesity and a compromised immune … As the Regional Director noted, Hannigan’s recidivism level, security level, and percentage of time served all precluded him from qualifying for early release to home confinement.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2023
The court may “dismiss as frivolous claims based on an indisputably meritless legal theory and whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990). … Rather, it provides | remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere in the Constitution or | federal law. Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996).
Cited 0 timesUnknown850 F. Supp. 2d 471 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2012
Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir.1986), provides that a “prison inmate has no constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty … The Court therefore rejects Brown’s factual contentions as clearly baseless. See Young v.
Cited 7 timesPublishedLuscious Limo Service, Inc. v. Big Bad Limo Service, Inc. (TEST CASE)
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2021
To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege (1) he was over forty years old; (2) the defendant took an adverse action against him; (3) he was qualified … Soltis disagrees and argues that she has established a prima facie case because she has shown she was over forty and qualified for the position, but Moses did not hire her and instead hired a thirty-eight-year
Cited 0 timesUnknownSoltis v. Scranton Quincy Hospital Company, LLC
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 2021
To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege (1) he was over forty years old; (2) the defendant took an adverse action against him; (3) he was qualified … Soltis disagrees and argues that she has established a prima facie case because she has shown she was over forty and qualified for the position, but Moses did not hire her and instead hired a thirty-eight-year
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2025
Nonetheless, because the limitations period is a condition of the waiver of sovereign immunity, and serves a salutary purpose in ensuring timely submission of claims, this 60–day limitations period “must be strictly … With respect to equitable tolling claims made in this setting, it is also clear that: “plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that equitable tolling applies.” Frazier v. Colvin, No.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2023
Initially, Mitchell’s amended complaint does not clearly identify the specific practice or procedure that Defendants failed to employ. … sovereign immunity, although Mitchell does not request such relief in his amended complaint.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2025
Here, Plaintiff clearly alleges that Defendants simply stopped providing him the medications that were prescribed for him when he was at another facility. (Doc. 25, p. 5.) … This highlights the court’s previous orders dismissing claims against SCI- Smithfield because the facility did not qualify as a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 13, 22.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownPhiladelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Yap
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2024
Defendant Tina Yap alleges in the underlying negligence action that | Adventure Sports held itself out as properly licensed and qualified by the Nationa | Park Service to organize boating trips within the Delaware Water … | Under Pennsylvania law, “[a] valid exculpatory contract fully immunizes a person or entity from any consequences of its negligence.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2021
Based on these ailments, Brown claims to be a qualified individual with a disability under the terms of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). … Upper Darby Township, 838 F.2d 663 (3d Cir. 1988) (Establishing vulnerability to suicide as a serious medical need); see also Palakovic, 854 F.3d at 224.
Cited 0 timesUnknown364 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2005
Id. at § 479.16(a); see also § 479.19 (establishing the Board and explaining who its members will be). … However, despite the state appellate court’s reference to “constitutional rights” as noted above, Ferguson was clearly not resolved on constitutional grounds.
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2025
A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA by showing: “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential … Under these standards, two off-hand comments are clearly insufficient to show severe or pervasive conduct.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2021
Alleging a mere hypothesis that an individual defendant had personal knowledge or involvement in depriving the plaintiff of his rights is insufficient to establish personal involvement. Rode v. … If Jones decides to file an amended complaint, he must clearly label the document “Amended Complaint.” It must bear the docket number assigned to this case (Civ.
Cited 0 timesUnknown212 F. Supp. 2d 361 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 2002
As indicated above, the scale operators qualify as participants in the scheme. … Thus, the two level enhancement for more than minimal planning is clearly appropriate as to Del Serra. 19 .
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna