Case law

Watters v. Board of School Directors of the City of Scranton

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2019

It is well-established that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is to be broadly construed. In Dennis v. … This well-established presumption is grounded in the elementary proposition that the principal function of a legislature is not to make contracts, but to make laws that establish the policy of the state.

Witbeck v. Equipment Transport, LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2022

To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Witbeck must prove, inter alia, he was a qualified individual capable of performing the essential functions of his job with or without a reasonable accommodation. … Witbeck may submit evidence related to his personal assessment of his job performance for the purpose of establishing he meets the definition of a qualified individual but not for the purpose of establishing Equipment

ARLINGTON INDUSTRIESM, INC. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.

610 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2009

Thus, the physical composition of the accused product is clearly a factual matter about which the parties disagree. 1. … The undisputed facts establish that Arlington took no action to notify Bridgeport of the alleged infringement until December 6, 2005.

Star Spa Services, Inc. v. Robert G. Turano Insurance Agency, Inc.

595 F. Supp. 2d 519 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2009

The denial of coverage for Star Spa came not because the claim did not qualify under the policy, but because there was no policy under which plaintiffs could make a claim. … Failure to Establish Prima Facie Causation Defendants next argue that even if plaintiffs could establish that a duty to provide coverage existed in this case, they could not establish that the failure to provide such coverage

Hernandez v. Superintendent of SCI-Fayette

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

As the statute clearly states, the one-year limitations period begins to run on “the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized,” not when it was discovered by the petitioner.24 Finally, … Hernandez has not established either element.

Haas v. Barr

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

First, Haas asserts that “[s]ince the ‘exceeds’ evaluation, there had been numerous GS-12 job opening[s] posted[;] however, [he] never received any promotion due to his no longer being considered ‘qualified.’”82 But he … Once a plaintiff makes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the employer to “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the [adverse employment action].”90 Specifically, the employer must “clearly

Bloom v. Hollibaugh

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2020

Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69 (3d Cir. 2019), that the plaintiff’s status as a prisoner or non-prisoner under the PLRA was to be determined by reference to the date of filing of an amended complaint that also qualified as … As such, the Corrections Defendants’ motion for reconsideration on the grounds that the Court clearly erred in its analysis is denied. B.

Watley v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2021

Watley also mentions in his amended complaint “the Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause, the Privileges and Immunity Clause of Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, Equal Protection Clause and . … And “[w]here, as here, a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element.” Id. (footnote omitted) (quoting Warth v.

Coit v. Luther

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2020

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 maintain such a claim, a plaintiff must establish that he has been irrationally singled out for disparate treatment. See id.

Chester v. Beard

657 F. Supp. 2d 534 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2009

regarding Kentucky’s specific death-penalty protocol. 10 The leading opinion in Baze noted that the Court’s precedent recognizes “that subjecting individuals to a risk of future harm- — -not simply actually inflicting pain— can qualify … Chief Justice Roberts was rejecting the petitioners’ efforts to establish an Eighth Amendment violation merely by proposing a “slightly or marginally safer alternative.” Baze, 128 S.Ct. at 1531 .

Ray v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2019

Additionally, unless waived, sovereign immunity shields federal agencies from suit. See Hatten v. Bledsoe, No. 19-1378, 2019 WL 3714972, at *3 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2019) (citing FDIC v. … Ray decides to file an amended complaint in this action, he must clearly label it, on the face of the document, “Amended Complaint.”

Berger v. Springs Window Fashions

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

However, an individual’s religious beliefs do not immunize him or her from legal responsibilities shared by all members of society. … Tasks carried out by private entities with the approval or acquiescence of the state still fail to qualify as a state action. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 52 (1999).

Williams v. Wetzel

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

Furthermore, an inmate may not avoid this exhaustion requirement by merely alleging that the administrative policies were not clearly explained to him. See Warman, 49 F. App’x at 368. … As noted supra, Plaintiff may not avoid the exhaustion requirement by alleging that the DOC’s grievance policy was not clearly explained to him. See Warman, 49 F. App’x at 368.

Rhodes v. Northumberland County

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

Thus, Rhodes’s retaliation claim is clearly within the scope of the Charge. (Doc. 11-1, at 5). … Courts have consistently held that termination qualifies as an adverse action for the purposes of Title VII and the PHRA. See Daniels v. Sch. Dist.

Ignjatovic v. Caregivers America LLC

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

timing to establish a causal link.” … And Fraser -25- notwithstanding, she has not alleged a discharge violating clearly mandated public policy.

Nifas v. Serrano

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2020

Plaintiff’s complaint, as pled, does nothing more than set forth a threadbare recital of the first requirement necessary to establish a retaliation claim. … Defendants have misconstrued Plaintiff’s complaint because he clearly states that he is raising First Amendment retaliation claims against With respect to Defendant Serrano, Plaintiff alleges that she retaliated against

Grajales-El v. Amazon Prime

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2021

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution provides in part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the … To state a claim for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) a plaintiff must show: “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential

Petoff

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2026

Sept. 2, 2005) (noting that the ADA does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity so it does not apply to the federal government). … The BOP has established a multi-tier system enabling a federal prisoner to seek formal review of any aspect of his imprisonment. 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-542.19.

Brooks v. Hurwitz

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

Here, Petitioner is clearly challenging his conviction and sentence. Thus, his proper avenue of relief is a section 2255 motion filed in the district court where he was convicted and sentenced. … A motion under §2255 is “‘inadequate or ineffective’” only where it is established “‘that some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a 2255 proceeding from affording the prisoner a full hearing and adjudication

Rainey v. Ransom

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 2023

As a result, Plaintiff has not clearly linked these general claims to the various events asserted in his complaint. … ) (explaining that “[i]nsofar as [the prisoner-plaintiff] argues that his rights under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 . . . were violated, other courts addressing this issue have found that the PREA does not establish