Case law

Brooks v. Hurwitz

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2020

(2) The government failed to establish a required element of his bank robbery convictions under 18 U.S.C. … 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.

Butler v. Kauffman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2022

The header for Count 9 is clearly legible and prominently displayed on page 42 of the complaint, and the complaint clearly sets out the factual allegations and legal theories on which the count is based.124 I will not … Assuming, arguendo, that the Code of Ethics can qualify as a contract under Pennsylvania law, there is still no evidence in the record indicating that Plaintiffs are parties to the contract.

Winter v. Pennsylvania State University

172 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2016

These allegations fail to establish a due process violation. … This fails to establish a due process violation.

Jones v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

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

“[L]iability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, . . . petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 46, cmt. D. … These allegations plausibly establish that CVS’ actions were extreme and outrageous, and it knew or should have known that they would cause Jones severe emotional distress.

Neff v. Walker

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2023

complaint is filed.”9 “Imminent dangers” are ones which are “about to occur at any moment or are impending,” not harms that have already occurred.10 Claims of imminent danger that are “conclusory or ridiculous” do not qualify … Neff is clearly asserting past harms, not impending ones, and thus cannot avail himself of the “imminent danger” exception. See Ball, 726 F.3d at 467.

Weintraub v. Rural Electrification Administration

457 F. Supp. 78 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 1978

The Plaintiffs must also establish that they are likely to prevail on the merits. … For example, the Court believes that the statute clearly applies to licenses issued to TV stations by the FCC. The legislative history supports this interpretation.

Van Zandt v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania/Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2024

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not met their burden to establish that the balance of the relevant factors strongly favors transfer. (Doc. 24, at 9-18; Doc. 25, at 23). 1. … To establish a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that: “(1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some public

Hoskins v. Superintendent Kauffman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 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. … The Court finds the state court’s determination is not contrary to clearly established federal law or an unreasonable determination of the facts.

Neff v. Penn. Legislators

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2023

are impending,” not harms that have already occurred.12 Claims of imminent danger that are “conclusory or ridiculous” do not qualify.13 As noted above, Neff has filed three previous civil rights cases … Neff is clearly asserting past harms, not impending ones, and thus cannot avail himself of the “imminent danger” exception. See Ball, 726 F.3d at 467.

Bascom, Jr. v. PA Treatment & Healing

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2025

“The first four elements of this claim establish that a hostile work environment existed. The fifth element . . . establishes the basis on which to hold the employer liable.” Id. … Bascom’s impairment was clearly transitory, even though the parties dispute how many “mental health days” Bascom took off.

Dolan v. Community Medical Center Healthcare System

500 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2007

Review of Rule 12(b)(1) Motions It is well-established that subject matter jurisdiction is required in order for a federal court to preside over a dispute. See, e.g., Robinson v. … Because Plaintiff, a female currently residing in Fredericksburg, Virginia, was qualified for the position, during or about September 2004, she responded to the listing by *506 sending her resume to Cheryl Freedman (“Ms.

Stroud

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2026

Discussion The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) waives the United States’ sovereign immunity by granting federal district courts jurisdiction over certain claims … “Therefore, summary judgment may only be granted where ‘facts so clearly reveal the plaintiff’s negligence [such] that reasonable minds could not disagree as to its existence.’”

Marino v. Howard

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2021

The First Circuit also rejected Marino’s claim that the government improperly granted immunity to an informant and refused to provide his discovery of exculpatory and impeachment material evidence because he … 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.

O'Brien v. Public Service Taxi Co.

83 F. Supp. 55 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1949

There are times when the uncontradicted facts may so clearly negative any idea of negligence so as to justify the court in so declaring as a matter of law. That was, however, not the situation here. … The Restatement cites the following as an illustration: “P, a railroad, employs A, á qualified conductor, to take charge of the train. A assaults T, a passenger. P is subject to liability to T.”

Kitchen v. Clinton County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2020

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceeding for redress .... 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … Plaintiff argues that the complaint’s allegations make out a claim of deliberate indifference because they demonstrate that Defendant Pecht persisted in a particular course of treatment which clearly was not working as

Mable v. Garman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2020

Further, the evidence at trial clearly established, and [Petitioner] does not deny, his “presence at the scene of the crime.” … established federal law.

Kern v. DAS Companies, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2024

or more does not establish any causal connection based on timing.” … element of her retaliation claim on the jobs she applied for “that clearly align with the strongest aspects of her skillset.” (Doc. No. 47 at 44.)

Scott, Jr. v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

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

Because Scott is suing Defendants in their official capacities, such claims may be viable as the Supreme Court has held that Title II of the ADA validly abrogates sovereign immunity as to state conduct that violates the … To establish a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that: “(1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some public entity

Groulx v. Garman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2020

Rather, “[t]he state court's application of clearly rc established law must be objectively unreasonable” before a federal court may grant the writ. Andrade, 538 U.S. at 75. … 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.

Nealman v. Laughlin

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2019

Now, with the full Rule 56 record before us, there is no doubt that the remaining defendants are entitled to statutory immunity. … Even if we were to accept plaintiff’s interpretation of MCCF’s policies and her assertion that Nealman qualified for but did not receive an immediate mental health referral, her claim at best sounds in negligence.