Case law

Oxenrider v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2021

No Section 1983 Liability for Named Defendants It is well established that, to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege “the violation of a right secured by the Constitution … acting under color of state law.”21 Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983; state agencies such as the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole do not qualify

Thompson v. Pierre

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2025

“Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment… including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” O’Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987) (citations omitted). … immunity argument at this time.

Pennsylvania Dental Ass'n v. MEDICAL SERVICE ASS'N

632 F. Supp. 653 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1986

Furthermore, we think that the evidence establishes quite clearly that the dentists’ disagreement with Blue Shield and their departicipation goes not to Blue Shield’s presence in Market I as a buyer of dental services, but … The evidence establishes very clearly that the dentists objected to the non-economic requirements of participating dentist status and to the prospect of being answerable to a third-party entity as to the standard and nature

Bainbridge v. Garland

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2025

When the three men met, Counselor Bainbridge told them about his issues with his then-wife, which was causing Counselor Bainbridge to be unable to “think clearly” such that his “head’s not in the game.” … This claim would meet the same fate even if Counselor Bainbridge established his prima facie case.

Lloyd v. Barr

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2020

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...”34 “Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment,

Tolan v. Saul

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2022

However, to qualify for benefits by showing that an impairment, or combination of impairments, meets a listed impairment, the claimant bears the burden of presenting “medical findings equivalent in severity to … The record clearly establishes that Ms. Tolan is not capable of performing any type of substantial gainful activity.

Shapiro

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2025

“The United States and its agencies are generally immune from suit in federal court absent a clear and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity.” , 38 F.4th … Moreover, this claim will be dismissed leave to amend, as any such amendment is clearly futile. IV.

In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation

289 F.R.D. 200 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2012

McClave is properly qualified as an expert in both econometrics and statistics. Dr. … After establishing prices for the benchmark period, Dr.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Burnside

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2025

Defendant’s removal fails to qualify under any of these provisions, as discussed further below. … To qualify for removal pursuant to Section 1442, a removing party must establish that she is an officer of the United States or a person acting under an officer of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1442; see Pennsylvania v

Campbell v. Conway

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2020

“It is well established that summary evidence is admissible under Rule 1006 only if the underlying materials upon which the summary is based are admissible.”44 As summarized by the United States Court of Appeals for the … There is no indication that Appellants do not qualify for Chapter 7 proceedings, and the Bankruptcy Court did not clearly err in concluding otherwise.

Sheehan v. Shippensburg University

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2025

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, the employee must establish that: “(1) [s]he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [s]he … coupled with timing to establish a causal link.”

Allen, Jr. v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2025

, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … This conclusory assertion is not sufficient to establish their personal involvement.

Leuthner v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NE PA

270 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2003

allegations is that Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty is based upon the premise that the act of amending the Plan, despite the fact that Blue Cross representatives had previously indicated to Plaintiffs that they and qualified … Consistent with the Third Circuit’s holding in Unisys I, because Blue Cross stated “clearly and unequivocally” in the SPDs that the company reserved the right to modify or amend the Plan, we hold that Plaintiffs cannot establish

Gorecki v. Massanari

197 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2001

A complete analysis of whether the person qualifies for disability is not complete at this point. … At this point, more than a de minimis showing is necessary to qualify for disability.

M.O. and B.O. v. Bason

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

The Court declines to do so, as the parents failed to establish that such an extraordinary remedy is warranted in this circumstance. … rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”71 If the underlying right allegedly infringed qualifies

Paulino Cabrera v. FedEx Supply Chain

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2021

a reasonable juror to conclude that he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. … Plaintiff should clearly outline his allegations in correspondence with - 9 - the required elements of the claim that he desires to assert and what remedies

Houser

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2026

Dancha.60 Ardery, who is not a medical professional, cannot be held liable for relying on the medical decision of a qualified medical expert.61 Additionally, Lee’s second medical indifference claim fails against Facility … That is, there are no allegations establishing that any DOC Defendant was aware of, or acted with deliberate indifference to, a serious risk to Lee’s health or safety (i.e., a potential for attempting suicide).

Lewis v. Nationwide Insurance

541 F. Supp. 951 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1982

As previously noted, the purpose of the No-Fault Act is “to establish ... a Statewide system of prompt and adequate basic loss benefits for motor vehicle accident victims . . . . ” 40 P.S. § 1009.102(b). … Williams was clearly not behaving as a motorist at the time of his assault on Day. Id. at 219-20 , 396 A.2d 3 . (Emphasis added and citations omitted). See also Schweitzer v.

REAVIS v. BOHNER

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2020

. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) 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.”6 In … Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (“To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, ‘an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed’ ” (quoting Preiser

METCALF v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2021

determined that Plaintiffs could not establish damages in the form of lost profits, and therefore denied Plaintiffs’ request for lost profit damages.11 However, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs could establish damages … .44 Leibundgut further emphasized that, despite Merrill Lynch being a broker- dealer, “these OCC and Federal Reserve Regulations, particularly under the interagency guidance promulgated in 1994 . . . clearly