Case law

Koehler v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2024

acknowledged that he had no form of immunity. … The other decisions Petitioner relies on to support his argument on this point are lower federal court decisions that do not qualify as “clearly established Federal law” under § 2254(d)(1).

Carpenter v. York Area United Fire and Rescue

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2020

Carpenter responds that his “crushing depression and anxiety” clearly qualify as an actual disability under the ADA. (Doc. 30-2 at 10). … Carpenter unquestionably fails to establish that he was a qualified individual, which is fatal to his ADA discrimination claim. B.

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2024

Findings supported by the record are not clearly erroneous, even if the record could support a different conclusion. Anderson, 470 U.S. … at 573-74 (‘Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”).

Angelillo v. Facebook

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2024

Neither the legal claims alleged, nor the facts they are based on are clearly set forth in this pleading. … Because all three elements to establish immunity from liability under Section 230 are met, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Glenn v. Mataloni

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

Under Pennsylvania’s sovereign immunity statute, “the Commonwealth, and its officials and employees acting within the scope of their duties, shall continue to enjoy sovereign and official immunity and remain immune from … suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.”

Louis v. Ebbert

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2019

The request must be clearly marked “Sensitive” and include a written explanation why it has not been submitted at the institution level. /d. … immunity.

Banks v. U.S. Marshals Judiciary Security Division

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2021

procedure is clearly shown to be inadequate to prevent irreparable harm”); Carling v. … 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.

Wiles v. Walters

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2023

Defendants seeking to invoke res judicata must establish (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) the same parties or their privies litigated the previous case; and (3) the instant case is based on the … Although res judicata has only been asserted by defendant Duvall, we will dismiss the complaint on the basis of res judicata as to both remaining defendants because the doctrine clearly bars the complaint with respect

Rubino v. Lackawann County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2020

Plaintiff avers that the circumstances of this case show that sanctions are not warranted as the record clearly indicates that Dr. … First of all, the Motion clearly alleges that Dr. Fleetman diagnoses an Endocrine Disorder.

Williams v. Priliszh

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2022

To state a cause of action under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by persons acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct violated a right, privilege, or immunity … Additionally, de minimis use of physical force does not qualify as excessive force unless the force is “repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Brooks v.

Morgan v. Allison Crane & Rigging LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2023

factor cutting against a   61 Doc. 40-4 at 10. 62 This is an out-of-court statement and is clearly … four months of limited lifting restrictions81 is insufficient to establish a disability, the Court cannot conclude that limited lifting restrictions for a period of 48 days may establish a disability.82 Consequently

Appalachian Land and Conservation Services v. Porter Equipment Co.

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

Defendant has not established that summary judgment is appropriate for this claim. … For instance, if a widget seller advertised “batch of 50 widgets, sold as is,” the “as is” term could not render him immune from suit if what he delivered was less than 50 widgets or if the widgets indeed were not widgets

DIORIO v. HARRY

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2020

Apr. 10, 2012) (noting that “sovereign immunity precludes a Monell claim against Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections [] or a State Correctional Institution”). 2. … These allegations are insufficient to establish a prima facie claim against Jacoby. See, e.g., Fennell v. Wetzel, No. 4:17-CV-1520, 2019 WL 1264898, at *8 (M.D. Pa.

Jane Doe 1 v. Wolf

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2021

crime, has information about the qualifying crime, and has been helpful to an investigation or prosecution regarding the qualifying crime. 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c). … . § 214.14(d)(2) (establishing the U Visa waiting list).

Ezeibe v. City of York

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2022

In undertaking this inquiry, no particular background or credentials are necessary to establish the requisite specialized knowledge, as “a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert.” … Territory or the District of Columbia, subject, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

In Re: Burnside

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 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 he 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.

Community Services, Inc. v. Heidelberg Township

439 F. Supp. 2d 380 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2006

qualified for living at a LTSR. … Clearly, plaintiffs requests for a variance and special exception, or for its proposed use to be classified as a “family,” were necessary.

United States v. Mangiardi

173 F. Supp. 2d 292 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 2001

Failure to qualify witnesses as experts Mangiardi argues that trial counsel was ineffective because he did not qualify as experts attorneys Bailey, Allen Paglia, and Albert Meyer. … “Generally, only when ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance be overcome.”

Smith v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

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

Title II of the ADA provides that: Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from … it would be immune from such a claim, the Court will dismiss the § 1983 claims here.

Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Electronic Custom Distributors, Inc.

817 F. Supp. 2d 473 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2011

It held general jurisdiction proper for “active websites” — where a “defendant clearly does business over the Internet.” Id. at 1124 . … However, as established, Defendant’s website is not of that category anyway.