Case law

Showers v. Beard

586 F. Supp. 2d 310 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2008

At the time the state courts reviewed the claims that Showers’ counsel was arguably ineffective, Strickland’s familiar two-pronged test was the “clearly established federal law” applicable to ineffective assistance of counsel … Doyle’s report noted, “there is no known way to mask the bitter taste of Roxanol,” (Id. at 66), Attorney Rudinski maintained that Helen Wolfe was the only person qualified to testify as to the bitter taste of Roxanol, because

Wilkins v. Wolf

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2021

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 … Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987) (“Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment . . . including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.”)

Bautista v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2023

Under well-established precedent, such evidence is insufficient to demonstrate deliberate indifference on the part of Defendant. … No. 53 at 9-12 (arguing that Plaintiff cannot establish any basis for damages and that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity)).

Blount

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2026

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 … . §794(a) (“No otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . .

Sovereign Bank v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

395 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2005

Sovereign relies on the second test to establish its status. … Such an outstanding burden is clearly inappropriate and a danger to our economic system.” Id. at 21 , 501 A.2d at 279 .

West Shore Home, LLC v. Chappell

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

Once again, the court finds that this fact has been established. … Chappell argues, once again, without any support other than his own affidavit, that this does not qualify as consideration. (Doc. 130, pp. 8–9.)

Ravert v. Monroe County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2022

Clearly this policy applies to the “Facility Health Authority” or the person in charge of the Authority, not an individual “Qualified Health Care Personnel” like Nurse Ramos. … They do not enjoy absolute immunity. But the defendant municipal officials must have had "final policymaking authority" to bind the municipality.

Buckley v. State Correctional Institution-Pine Grove

98 F. Supp. 3d 704 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2015

More than that, the established safety concern must be of such a quality that it “cannot otherwise be accommodated.” … As the Department explains, The requirement that the student’s IEP team make an individualized determination regarding modifications to IEP or placement are clearly stated in the regulations.

Singleton v. Shearer

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2019

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 … While causation can be established by direct or circumstantial evidence, “motivation is almost never subject to proof by direct evidence.” Watson, 834 F.3d at 422.

Isaac v. Marsh

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2023

Thus, “Section 1983 imposes civil liability upon any person who, acting under the color of state law, deprives another individual of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United … prison setting, the United States Supreme Court has stated that “convicted prisoners do not forfeit all constitutional protections by reason of their conviction and confinement in prison[,]” and, thus, they “clearly

Ismail v. McDermott International Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2022

but are 4 Despite the plaintiff’s claim in his objections that the Honeywell defendants’ request and Judge Schwab’s recommendation that he not be allowed to file another amended complaint “clearly … Well-established case law demonstrates that failure to conduct an investigation does not constitute an adverse employment action.

Lewis v. Superintendent Mason

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

In adopting the “more-specific-provision- rule” established in County of Sacramento v. … Nor can an inmate avoid this exhaustion requirement by merely alleging that the administrative policies were not clearly explained to him. Warman, 49 F. App’x at 368.

Wright v. Elite Revenue Solutions, LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2024

“Section 1983 imposes civil liability upon any person who, acting under the color of state law, deprives another individual of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States … As the amended complaint in its current form does not clearly set forth any claims against Defendants, dismissal is warranted.

Graham v. Wilkie

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2022

Most commonly, Courts state that “[i]n order to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under the ADA, a plaintiff must show ‘(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified … Dec. 4, 2013)(“To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff must show that (1) he is a member of a protected category; (2) he applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking

Wotanis v. PNC Bank, N.A.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2019

Moreover, to seek information from a servicer under RESPA, a borrower first must send the servicer a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”). Stefanowicz, 2017 WL 1103183, at *7. … While the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs fail to allege that PNC actually caused them damages, (Doc. 12; Doc. 13 ¶¶ 12-15), the Plaintiffs clearly allege that their damages are the direct result of PNC’s failure to

Zillhart v. Smith

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2021

Rather, “[t]he state court’s application of clearly 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.

Werner v. Horton

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

To establish negligence per se, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: 1) the statute or regulation clearly applies to the conduct of the defendant; 2) the defendant violated the statute or … Otherwise, the vehicle would not qualify as a “commercial motor vehicle,” even if it operated on highways in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property.

Wolfe v. Rivello

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2024

A plaintif may make this showing by establishing that tie defendants “intentionally denfied] or delay[ed] medical care.” /d. (quotation marks omitted). … Wolfe’s complaint clearly alleges that “he was being monitored” and was provided medication for his ailments. (Doc. 1, p. 4).

Salcedo v. Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center

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

Defendant maintains that because “Plaintiff cannot establish that any reasonable accommodation was available that would enable him to perform essential job functions,” he is not “otherwise qualified” under the ADA. … In response, Plaintiff argues that he can demonstrate the second element of a prima facie case under the ADA, which requires him to establish that “he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job

Powell v. Fisher

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2020

The DOC objects to this conclusion arguing that the amended complaint clearly seeks monetary relief in the form of compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief, which is now moot. … Sutton, even assuming that Powell has a qualifying disability under the ADA and RA, Powell has not identified a compensable injury.