Case law

Fiddemon v. Maholik

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

“In the familiar qualified immunity analysis, the court asks “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have been] clear to … The court finds the right was clearly established to preclude application of the qualified immunity doctrine to Officer Wozniak and Officer Maholik.

Loomis v. Montrose Borough

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2021

(See Doc. 1-5 ¶¶ 6-18).2 In response, Officer Diddick invokes the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiff’s rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v.

Horton v. Mills, Jr.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2025

I shall accordingly limit my qualified immunity analysis to this issue.269 Qualified immunity shields officers from suit unless they “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the … .”271 “For qualified-immunity purposes, clearly established rights are derived either from binding Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent or from a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts of

Wallace

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 2026

“[T]he Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, itself, which is clearly not a Commonwealth agency, still enjoys absolute immunity pursuant to 1 Pa. Cons. … agency, still enjoys absolute immunity pursuant to 1 Pa.

Pilchesky

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

It is well-established that state governments and their subsidiary units are immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. … To establish prosecutorial immunity, a defendant “must show that the conduct triggering absolute immunity clearly appears on the face of the complaint.” Roberts v. Lau, 90 F.4th 618, 631 (3d Cir. 2024).

Shoemaker v. City of Lock Haven

906 F. Supp. 230 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 1995

Dismissal is not appropriate unless “it clearly appears that no relief can be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistently with the plaintiffs allegations.” Id. … To invoke the protections of the Act, the plaintiff must establish that there was an “adjudication.”

Hall v. Wahl

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2025

Sixth, and finally, they assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 14–15.) The Court addresses each argument in turn. 1. … Additionally, while the Court recognizes that Defendants argue in their motion to dismiss that they are entitled to qualified immunity (Doc. 14 at 14– 15), because Hall will have the opportunity to file an amended complaint

White Ex Rel. White v. United States, Department of Interior

656 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 1986

The decision to delegate safety responsibility clearly calls for this type of judgment. … We have already established that the primary responsibility for safety was delegated to the contractor.

Jones v. Southcentral Employment Corp.

488 F. Supp. 2d 475 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2007

For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted because Plaintiff is estopped from establishing a prima facie element of each of her claims, namely, that she was qualified for any of the jobs in question. I. … Because the Court finds that Plaintiff is estopped from establishing that after November 8, 2001, she was “qualified” for any of the employment positions in question, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to have summary

Garcia v. The City of Hazleton

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

Hazleton Defendants also aver Police Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and immunity under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. (Doc. 4, at 2). … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Hazleton Defendants argue that Police Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 4, at 20-21).

Frey v. Pennsylvania Airlines

859 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 1992

Proof of discharge will establish a prima facie showing in a Title VII suit. … She established that she was within a protected class, women, and that Westinghouse fired her from her job within the Legal Department even though she was qualified to work as an attorney there.

Steinberg v. PA State Board of Pharmacy

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2022

Generally, immunity takes two forms: absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Although most public officials are entitled only to qualified immunity, officials like prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for the performance of certain “special functions.” Yarris v.

Koch v. United States

814 F. Supp. 1221 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1993

Undisputed facts also establish that the road on which standpipe BH-34 is located is not a “public road”. … Pennsylvania law clearly governs disposition of this case and the issues it presents. Under the FTCA, the law of the forum state, in this case, Pennsylvania, governs. Rodriguez v.

Heffner v. Murphy

866 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 8, 2012

They assert that because Plaintiffs’ state law constitutional claims do not qualify as one of the nine negligence claims for which the General Assembly has waived immunity, that Defendants enjoy immunity for all such claims … to restrain state officials from performing affirmative acts are not within the rule of immunity.”)

Murphy v. Grochowski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2021

immunity regarding this claim. … constitutional rights violation, and if so, 2) whether those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the incident.).

West v. Williamsport Area Community College

492 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1980

The Court, after noting that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “was intended to ‘create a species of tort liability ’ in favor of persons who are deprived of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured’ to them by the constitution,” id. at … Rather, the focus of the procedural due process case is whether the affected interest qualifies for protection under the due process clause and, if it does, whether constitutionally prescribed procedures had been utilized

Gach v. Borough

921 F. Supp. 2d 371 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2013

[to] conspire ... for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws .... ” Id. … As noted above, the Supreme Court has read into Section 1985(3) the requirement that the conduct at issue be clearly motivated by “some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.”

Washington v. Federal Bureau of Prisons Central Office/General Counsel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2025

immunity. … Because waiver of sovereign _ immunity is jurisdictional, the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that the United States has waived its immunity. See Lujan v.

Jenkins

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2026

According to Jenkins, on July 25, 2025, he fell asleep on the top bunk in his cell and then rolled off, falling onto the floor.3 Although not clearly alleged, it appears that Jenkins hit his head during the fall, as he … prejudice, as they are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Logue v. The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2025

Presuming that Logue’s diagnosis with AUD is a qualifying disability, Logue has not pled facts demonstrating that he has been precluded from any program, service, or activity because of his disability such that York CCP … Section 1983 does not create substantive rights, but instead provides remedies for rights established elsewhere. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985).