Case law

Cooper v. Ransom

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2024

plausibly alleged a connection between Brown’s purported conduct and his harm.17 The Court also dismissed the negligence claims against Wetzel and Ransom because those claims were barred by state statutory sovereign immunity … as required, the impossibility of social distancing, infected staff entering the prison and commingling with inmates, and lack of sanitizing supplies.41 Ransom does not argue that these alleged conditions would not qualify

Shine

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2026

At step two, the claimant has the burden to show that impairments qualify as severe. Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146. … Pa. 2022) (“Where an ALJ has clearly articulated the evidence supporting his decision, it is not our province to substitute our own judgment as to the severity of the plaintiff’s impairments.”).

Delmoral v. Garman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2020

Delmoral argues that the state court opinion resulted in a decision that was contrary to clearly established federal law in that “[t]he Pennsylvania Courts have 78 Mathias v. … For AEDPA purposes, the Strickland test qualifies as “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495.

Johnson v. Garman

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

federal court, we have held that when a petitioner fails to raise his federal claims in compliance with relevant state procedural rules, the state court's refusal to adjudicate the claim ordinarily qualifies … Clearly, this disposition was an independent state ground.”).

Scott v. Kauffman

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

Sixth Set of Allegations: Violation of Rights by Establishment of Religion under Section 1983 and First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. … Conspiracy to Establish a Religious Practice under Section 1983 and First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (Kauffman, Klemm, Wireman, Sipple, Erdogan, Walters, Wetzel).

Haines v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

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

state agency, PennDOT is immune from PHRA claims asserted in federal court, , 216 F. Supp. 2d 446, 454 (E.D. … To establish a prima face case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must establish that: “(1) s/he is a member of a protected class; (2) s/he was qualified for the position s/he sought to attain or retain;

Roman v. Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2022

As such, these documents containing out of court statements offered to prove and disprove plaintiff’s claims they are clearly hearsay and will not be considered. … The court finds that although an unpaid suspension can qualify as an adverse employment action for purposes of retaliation, see Friel v. Mnuchin, 474 F.Supp.3d 673, 690 (E.D.

O.G.M.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2026

Both parties agree that then Secretary Noem terminated TPS as to previously qualifying Venezuelans, and agree that, in a case filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that termination … But they cannot weigh in favor of Respondents when they are denying wholesale a bond hearing—the very purposes of which is to establish whether an individual “poses [a] flight risk [or a] danger to the community.”44 In

Riojas v. Gurman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2023

Valliere, to testify regarding counterintuitive victim behavior was contrary to and an unreasonable determination of clearly established federal law. (Doc. 6, p. 33.) … Plaintiff, however, failed to identify clearly established Supreme Court precedent that such evidence of prior bad acts constitutes a violation of due process.

Brinkley v. Howard

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 2023

the personal involvement of Defendants Howard and Nicholas; and (5) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … In the present matter, Brinkley failed to establish good cause.

Martinez v. Ransom

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2022

Martin and Ransom raise a bevy of reasons why the claims against them fail as a matter of law, including lack of personal involvement, qualified immunity, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, statute of limitations … Prince argues that the record clearly shows that there was no deliberate indifference to Martinez’s medical needs. We agree.

United States v. Smith

619 F. Supp. 1441 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1985

common elements, common participants, common means, some common objectives, or other common factors, but which lack the critical element of common objectives of the conspiracy on the part of all of the participants, do not qualify … The letter which is the subject of Count 2 of the indictment was clearly in furtherance of the conspiracy to influence public officials.

Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Jones

739 F. Supp. 2d 746 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2010

The insurer bears the burden of establishing the applicability of an exclusion under an insurance policy. Cosenza, 258 F.3d at 206 . … We find that Drumheiser clearly was not a “temporary worker” under the policy. Thus, we find that Mr. Drumheiser was an “employee” of Mr.

Phillips, Sr. v. Wilson

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

As explained by the Third Circuit, “[c]ontinued incarceration beyond that point is clearly punitive, and in many cases will serve no penological justification at all.” See id. (citing Sample v. … Accordingly, in order for a plaintiff to establish an Eighth Amendment claim for “over- detention,” he must satisfy a three-(3) pronged test: “(1) a prison official had knowledge of the prisoner’s problem and thus of the

Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corporation

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2021

a well-established and accurate mathematical formula is critical in helping Lycoming establish that the airplane engine was operating at full power at the time of the crash, which would effectively counter Sikkelee … The video of Sommer’s testing clearly demonstrates that the engine would not start without some in approximately one second.”223 This testing demonstrates that it is possible that the carburetor screws were initially

Weisser

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2026

Personal Involvement | It is well established that, in Section 1983 actions, liability cannot be | “oredicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.” Rode v. … 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.

Randolph v. Beard

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2020

This approach is entirely acceptable when “neither the reasoning nor the result” contradicts clearly established federal law. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002); Priester v. … These statements of law regarding a criminal defendant’s right to counsel of choice are consonant with clearly established federal law, i.e., precedent from the United States Supreme Court.

Degilio v. Greek

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

established case law; see 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(l); or (2) was “based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts,” see 28 U.S.C … Plus, Judge Mehalchick correctly pointed out that such an error, even assuming arguendo that it qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance, still does not show how it prevented Degilio from “filing a habeas

Welde v. Tetley, Inc.

864 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 1994

Plaintiff has performed functions which Maietta was never called upon to perform or was not qualified to perform. … The HAY System evaluates a position without regard to the person filling the position, and so clearly is gender-neutral.

Basemore

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2026

Here, Plaintiff has clearly alleged that she was under the care of multiple medical professionals during the time period at issue. … Nothing in this allegation establishes supervisory liability. Being in communication with an administrator concerning the care of a patient is not sufficient to establish liability. See Durmer, 991 F.2d at 69.