Case law

St. Mary's Area Water Authority v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

472 F. Supp. 2d 630 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2007

In its motion for reconsideration, Defendant argues we clearly erred in concluding that mechanical breakdown could not occur in the absence of a defect or corrosion. … As noted, we did decide that Defendant would have to show coverage for only one risk to establish that mechanical breakdown coverage was not illusory. Defendant has provided us with two of them.

Parrish v. Attorney General of Pennsylvania

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

BACKGROUND A prior version of Parrish’s amended complaint (Doc. 10) did not clearly identify the intended defendants. … To establish a Section 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.

Chambers v. York County Prison

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2019

Plaintiffs have also received disparate treatment which the white employees have not been subjected to, including: being passed over for promotions in favor of less qualified white candidates; intentionally being locked … Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a party may bring a private cause of action against any person who, under color of law, violates “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”

Devincenzo

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2025

Devincenzo, therefore, easily qualifies. Whether an individual is subjectively proficient at a job is one thing, whether she is objectively qualified for it is another. See Sempier v. … Here, even assuming Devincenzo has established the first two elements of her disability discrimination claim, she has clearly failed to establish causation.

Blount v. Mason

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2023

Inmates on the RRL are interviewed and examined by a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist at least every 90 calendar days. Id. … Hence, as a threshold matter, the plaintiff must establish that he had a protected liberty interest. See Fraise v.

Ealy v. Briggs

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2024

Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, agencies, and private businesses do not qualify as “persons.” See Will v. Mich. … Most notably, Ealy must clearly set forth the personal involvement of any defendant (identified or unidentified) in the alleged constitutional violation.

Pappas v. City of Lebanon

331 F. Supp. 2d 311 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2004

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, 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 … As a matter of federal law, Pappas has presented insufficient evidence of a "special relationship" to establish a deprivation by defendants.

Abdul-Salaam v. Beard

16 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2014

The two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland “qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law’ ” for purposes of AEDPA. Rainey v. … claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Zavada v. East Stroudsburg University

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2024

The court likened this theory of liability to municipal liability for an officer’s constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and noted that an “obvious need” can be established by knowledge of previous incidents … These allegations are sufficient to show an “obvious need” to address such reports which have been “established by [ESU’s] knowledge of previous incidents,” which made Zavada’s assault “predictable.”

Naimi v. O'Malley

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2025

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. … This clearly runs afoul of the strictly construed 60-day limitations period of which Naimi was informed in the Appeals Council notice she received.

Barclay v. Stabley

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2022

Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, 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 … judgment for the claims arising from the transporting of Plaintiff to the medical department because the force they used was reasonable and because they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Singh

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2026

pending a final order of removal.25 On the other hand, Section 1225(b)(2)(A) requires that “an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly … and “seeking admission” are legally distinct.28 In these cases, courts have found that noncitizens who have resided in the United States for some period of time, but who have not actively sought legal status, qualify

Stavola

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2026

The group appears to walk faster as it reaches the door frame, but the video does not clearly show why. Mitchell’s right arm or shoulder collides with the door frame as they pass it. … immunity, and the availability of compensatory damages.

Bliss-Miller v. Laborers International Union of North America Local 158

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2020

The second element that Bliss must establish is that she was qualified for the position. Sarullo, 352 F.3d at 797. … It appears that for purposes of the prima facie case, she was qualified for the job referrals that she sought from the Defendants.

INTERN. UNION v. Textron

919 F. Supp. 783 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1996

Likelihood of success on the merits To establish a likelihood of success on the merits, the union must establish: 1) that the dispute is arbitrable; and 2) that its interpretation of the collective bargaining is correct and … A total of 1,336 Textron retirees covered under the current Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan qualify for coverage under First Priority 65.

Jackson v. Labosky

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2025

To succeed ona Rule 12(c) motion, the movant must clearly establish that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that the movant “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sikirica v. … Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, 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

CHISOM v. SMITH

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2021

The two-pronged test established in Strickland “qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law’” for purposes of the AEDPA. See Rainey v. Varner, 603 F.3d 189, 197 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Williams v. … established federal law.

Severino-Mota v. Lidwell

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2024

Assuming that Plaintiffs allegations qualify as a serious medical condition for purposes of the Eighth Amendment analysis, the Court must determine whether he has established a deliberate indifference to that need. … In the present matter, Plaintiff failed to establish good cause.

Hill

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

Reading the pro se complaint liberally, “UMPC” is clearly a typographical error, and if UPMC Collections erroneously refers to a department within UPMC as a separate entity, the proper remedy is a caption … Hill’s complaint fails as pled because it does not allege sufficient facts to establish that the calls were placed by a “debt collector.” B.

Eiswerth v. Lackawanna County Sheriff's Department

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2025

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 … To the extent that Eiswerth intended to plead claims against Ehnot in his individual capacity, he must clearly do so in his complaint. Therefore, the claims against Ehnot are DISMISSED without prejudice.