Case law

Engelund v. Doll

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

Here, that standard is clearly satisfied. The current conditions at the facilities do not undermine this conclusion. … Petitioners have failed to establish, under either test, that prison officials exhibited deliberate indifference.

Dunn v. Tunkhannock Township

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

It is clearly established that “all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should … that “a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

Vrabec v. Geisinger Clinic

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2024

standards:109 Absent proof of purposeful discrimination, to state a prima facie case of discrimination Vrabec must show (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she suffered … Ingraham testified that he was “clearly” referring to Vrabec’s animosity towards Marks as the elephant in the room. Ingraham Dep, Doc. 35-3 at 246:7-20.

DeShields v. Commonwealth, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2020

Plaintiff did not qualify for this exception. (Id. ¶ 18.) The DOC policy was promulgated to ensure the safety of staff, visitors, and inmates from the spread of tuberculosis. … 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.

Mitwalli

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2026

Plaintiff clearly asserts that he provided the required documents to SOIGA in the appeal of Grievance No. 1050534. (Id.) … The burden then shifts to the non-moving party, Plaintiff, to establish that there is an issue of material fact.

Anash, Inc. v. Borough of Kingston

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2024

While Plaintiffs insist that a yeshiva is not a school, the evidence in the record, including photographs of the properties, clearly show rooms set up as classrooms, with white boards and books. … While there is no “calibrated yard stick” upon which to measure such conduct, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that “only the most egregious official conduct” qualifies. Kaucher v. Cty.

Etzle v. Glova

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2023

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 … Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 establishes a fairly liberal discovery policy.

Dunlap v. Nicklow

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

As noted above, the requisite personal involvement of a defendant cannot be established on the basis of respondeat superior alone. … Dunlap decides to file an amended complaint in this action, he must clearly label it, on the face of the document, “Amended Complaint.”

Vizcarrondo v. Saul

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

An impairment that only meets some of the criteria of a listed impairment, “no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990); see also Williams v. … The ALJ clearly utilized and discussed Dr. Kovatch’s opinion and response to the Childhood Disability Evaluation Form in his opinion and the court may not reweigh the evidence in its determination.

Bowers v. Benchtold

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2025

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 … Moreover, although Defendants argue that Bowers “clearly received dental treatment which included evaluations, medication, and at least one extraction,” it is not so clear from the Court’s perspective.

Baughman v. Marathon Petroleum Logistics Services, LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2025

Defendants argue that “because Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is where Plaintiff lived, worked and where the alleged wrongful employment actions necessarily occurred, venue [. . . ] is clearly not proper in the Middle District … Baughman has also satisfied the second prong that she was qualified for her position by claiming that she performed excellently and completed substantial and high-level work. (Doc. 15, ¶¶ 22-23, 38).

Evans Delivery Company, Inc. v. Rabbit Logistics & Company, LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 2025

Finally, a defendant’s failure to answer, respond, or otherwise participate in the litigation process without providing any good faith justification has qualified as “culpable conduct” when considering … Morgan's Tool & Supply Co., 39 A.3d 253, 262 (Pa. 2012) (because the Retail Member Agreement between the parties clearly provided for the payment of interest at a rate of 18% per annum on

Mayo v. Hollibaugh

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2020

Although the moving party must establish an absence of a genuine issue of material fact, it need not “support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent's claim.” … Although the initial grievance does not specify individuals responsible for the limitation placed on the legal exemption, he clearly identifies the policy, cites his objection to the policy, and includes detailed and

Keyes v. Lynch

214 F. Supp. 3d 267 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2016

circumstances and stated that the law of the case doctrine does not discourage revisiting a previous Order when “(1) new evidence is available; (2) a supervening new law has been announced; or (3) the earlier decision was clearly … However, because Congress has not funded and Pennsylvania has not established a mechanism to petition for relief from federal firearm disabilities, both were left without recourse to challenge their loss of private gun rights

Hollinghead v. City of York

11 F. Supp. 3d 450 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2014

The plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination. … (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link.

Scott v. Kauffman

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

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 … Placement in segregated housing rarely qualifies as a significant hardship. See Smith v.

Bolus v. Carnicella, Esquire

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2020

To Plaintiffs’ chagrin, the state court established that state law does not permit broader disclosure of the transcripts. … court judgments, “the full faith and credit obligation is exacting.”70 “A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgement, qualifies

Parker v. Correctional Care, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2023

Negligence Defendants first argue a claim of medical malpractice in Pennsylvania requires the testimony of a qualifying medical expert. … Jubanyik is qualified to testify under the MCARE Act regarding the applicable standard of care. Next, defendants argue that Dr.

Poindexter v. Starbucks York Roasting Plant

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2024

paragraphs; include a detailed fact section; and clearly identify her legal claims. … Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not include a caption, does not clearly identify any defendant in the caption or the body of her complaint, and does not clearly identify her legal claims. Id.

Hunt v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pinnacle

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2019

. § 794(a), provides, in relevant part, that: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, … This would clearly support the inference that the purpose of ePatch’s activity was to distribute information to third-parties engaged in commerce.