Case law

Dorsey v. United States of America

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

In order to qualify for the Gate Pass Program, an inmate must: (1) be a “minimum” security inmate with “OUT” custody; (2) have clear institutional conduct for 12 months; and (3) be without open charges, warrants, or detainers … Pa. 2009) (‘It is well-settled that the FTCA does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity for constitutional torts that may have been committed by its employees”).

Friend v. Shoemaker

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2021

Without the establishment of quiet hours, there would be no set hours for rest within the housing unit. … Friend clearly asserts that during the adjudication of his disciplinary incident report these Defendants “told him he could not recite the Adhan” or other prayers. (Doc. 35, p. 2.)

Hopersberger v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security

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

The legal standards that govern motions to reconsider are both clear, and clearly compelling. … 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. Courtney v.

Minichino v. Colvin

955 F. Supp. 2d 366 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2013

Shaw concluded the medical evidence established a medically determinable impairment of degenerative disc disease. (R. 870.) … Plaintiff is clearly a claimant with multiple physical problems, some psychological problems, and substance dependence issues.

Pachick v. Friedman's Express, Inc.

664 F. Supp. 944 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 1986

This statement clearly alleged that Pachick was not speeding and the Fire Chief identified the cause of the accident as mechanical defects. … However, according to the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff, as a discharged employee, would only qualify if his vacation period would commence no earlier than the date of his discharge.

Miller v. Zaken

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2024

This Court finds that the state courts’ analysis was neither contrary to clearly established federal law nor unreasonable. … This conclusion is neither contrary to clearly established federal law nor an unreasonable application of federal law.

ALLEN v. WETZEL

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 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 … 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.

MENDES

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2026

Sorgnard, 396 F.3d 326, 330 n.5 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting with approval adoption of “facts that were not clearly disputed by [nonmovant] with adequate references to the record.” (citation omitted)). … Rather, Robaczewski challenges whether Mendes can establish his subjective knowledge and disregard of that risk. Id.

Fridline v. Millennia Tax Relief, LLC

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

voicemail” to “wireless phones requires consumer consent because it is a ‘call’ made using an artificial or prerecorded voice and thus is covered by [S]ection 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)” of the TCPA.41 The complaint clearly … Jan. 17, 2024) (providing an in-depth analysis of why cell phones qualify as “residential telephone subscribers” for purposes of the DNC Registry.). 46 See

Smith v. Holtz

30 F. Supp. 2d 468 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1998

Smith contends that the determination is a technical one for which only the court is qualified. We disagree: The exculpatory nature of evidence is not difficult to discern. … He could not determine from examination of the lifters what the material was, and he conceded that he is not a forensic geologist or other scientist qualified to make that determination.

Caviston v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

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

After he filed his claims in this court, the defendant yefused to rehire him for certain positions despite being qualified. … Rule 26 establishes a liberal discovery policy.

Segura, Jr. v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2025

He must allege: 1) that the alleged misconduct was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2) that as a result, he was deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws … It is also well established that “[a] defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs to be liable, and cannot be held responsible for a constitutional violation which he or she

Raymo v. Civitas Media LLC

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

Civitas has failed to establish such clear evidence here. … In other words, while it appears Civitas has established that it may be prejudiced given that The Times Leader has been sold to a third party, it has not clearly established undue prejudice.

Seyoum v. HM Health Solutions Inc.

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

Under that framework, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which includes establishing that (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for his position, ( … Plaintiff submits that his high school diploma qualifies him for the position from which he was terminated. (Id.)

Minniti v. Crystal Window & Door Systems PA, LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2023

In short, simply reporting that it would look bad to fire two African American employees and that such action could invite litigation falls far short of clearly communicating to Crystal “a belief that the employer has … Minniti has therefore failed to establish that he engaged in protected conduct.

Ashby v. United States

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2020

April 10, 2020) (the court held that since defendant did not exhaust his BOP administrative remedies as required, “it [did] not decide whether he has established that there are ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons … The determination of which inmates qualify for home confinement under the CARES Act is with the BOP Director. See United States v. Doshi, 2020 WL 1527186, *1 (E.D.Mi.

Kennedy v. Primecare Medical, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2024

Jensing and Jane Doe that he had a broken foot and “can’t be housed on the top bunk,” removing his shoe and sock to show that his foot was “clearly noticeably broken.” However, they took no action. … 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.

Biazzo Dairy Products, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and The Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2025

extremely high bar because the challenger must establish that “no set of circumstances exists under which the [challenged law] would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). … These laws violate the dormant Commerce Clause only if the burden they impose on interstate commerce is “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” Pike, 397 U.S. at 142.

Wilson v. Mahally

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2023

Nevertheless, a “trial court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Tartaglione, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 406. … As explained, supra n.1, a conviction for robbery does not categorically qualify as a crime involving a dishonest act or false statement for purposes of Rule 609(a)(2).

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Berwick Industries, Inc.

373 F. Supp. 851 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 1974

Berwick Industries, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation and has a regular and established place of business in Berwick, Pennsylvania. … In a trademark case, the Supreme Court established a clear distinction between laches and estoppel. Menendez v.