Case law

Nigro v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2020

Under the PSLF, the Department is directed to forgive all principal and interest due on a federal direct loan if the borrower (a) has made 120 qualified monthly payments on the loan; (b) has worked in a qualified public … Here, although the court ultimately finds that PHEAA is not entitled to derivative sovereign immunity, that doctrine still qualifies as a colorable federal defense because it is legitimate and can reasonably be asserted

B.S. v. York County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2020

immunity. … July 24, 2020) (“To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, [we] engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly

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).

Bell v. Rossotti

227 F. Supp. 2d 315 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2002

This Court will only grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss if there is clearly no remedy available for the Plaintiffs claim, or if Plaintiff has no right or power to assert the claim. Melo-Sonics Corp. v. … Sovereign immunity is not defeated by the act of naming officers and employees of the United States as defendants in a suit that properly is against the United States. Larson v.

Kindness v. Spang

716 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 1987

A federal right or immunity must be ascertained as an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action for the lawsuit to be maintained in federal court. See Gully v. … Here, although the complaint on its fact pleads no cause of action under federal law, plaintiffs deposition clearly elucidates that the complained of statements took place during the course of a management-union grievance

Hornick v. Borough of Duryea

507 F. Supp. 1091 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 1980

On July 29, 1977, the EEOC issued its determination on plaintiff’s second charge, finding in pertinent part: [T]he [Borough’s] height requirement clearly had a disparate effect on females. … It is well established that statistics alone may suffice to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Hazelwood School District v.

Jennings v. Wolf

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

To establish a claim under Title II of the ADA, “a person ‘must demonstrate: (1) he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) [who] was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the … immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Nelson v. Mroczka

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2023

First, Mroczka contends that qualified immunity applies because Nelson cannot establish that a constitutional violation occurred and that, assuming arguendo there was a violation, the right violated was not clearly established … Mroczka’s qualified immunity argument because Nelson has failed to establish that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether a constitutional violation occurred.34

Bicking

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2026

The Court acknowledges that the DOC raised a qualified immunity defense but characterized that defense as applying to the alleged “right to not be placed on work restrictions for his typical prison job when he had just … Therefore, even the qualified immunity defense did not address the additional claims raised in the complaint.

CECIL THOMPSON v. CITY OF WILLIAMSPORT and JASON P. BOLT

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

This analysis is the first stage of a two-step inquiry for evaluating a qualified immunity defense, Saucier v. … immunity does not bar Thompson’s Section 1983 claims.115 An individual’s Constitutional rights not to be arrested or prosecuted without probable cause are clearly established in the Third Circuit, and “no reasonable

Kennedy v. Borough of Frackville Pennsylvania

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

There are two kinds of immunity under § 1983: qualified immunity and absolute immunity. Id. at 135. … Although most public officials are entitled only to qualified immunity, public officials who perform ‘“special functions’” are entitled to absolute immunity. Id. (quoting Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 508 (1978)).

Rivera-Guadalupe v. City of Harrisburg d/b/a Bureau of Police

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2021

Defendant Pierce’s brief in support of his motion to dismiss the amended complaint violates the consolidation rule by rehashing those arguments and by making new arguments, such as on the defense of qualified immunity, … First, Defendant Pierce claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims because it was ambiguous at the time of the his conduct whether Wright or Johnson is good law. The court disagrees.

Hunter v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2024

A reading of Plaintiff's Complaint in toto clearly demonstrates these two objectives are exactly what he seeks to achieve” (brackets, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted)). … 723, 726 (3d Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (determining that sanctions consisting of “30 days of solitary confinement, 60 days without visiting privileges, and loss of [plaintiff’s] institutional employment . . . do not qualify

Benson

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2026

Id. at 3. 16 Benson also sets forth what he contends is the law regarding the right to travel, doc. 1 ¶¶ 50–54, and qualified immunity, id. at 28–29 ¶¶ 76–77. … The second set of paragraphs numbered 76–79 are his allegations regarding the law of qualified immunity, which as noted above, see supra n.16, we do not recount because they are legal conclusions.

Fayerweather v. Bell

447 F. Supp. 913 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1978

At this point the prisoner should be allowed to proceed under his theory of wilful and wrongful deprivation until additional facts can be placed on the record which indicate more clearly the proper theory of action. … The purpose of exhaustion of administrative remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a) is to improve and expedite disposition of monetary claims against the Government by establishing a system for prelitigation settlement, to enable

Willis v. Dillsburg Grain & Milling Co.

490 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1980

Section 1318 does provide for such procedure and would be applicable in the instant case were it not for the qualifying phrase in the first sentence of section 1318, which states “Unless the by-laws provide otherwise, . . … Bankers Securities Corporation, 230 F.2d 717 (3rd Cir. 1956) clearly set forth the then existing and still controlling state of the law with respect to derivative actions.

United States v. Mitchell

218 F. Supp. 3d 360 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2016

Under these circumstances, the *368 court is compelled to find that Mitchell has established actual and substantial prejudice to cure her procedural default. C. … Clearly, this is not generic arson. The modified categorical approach provides guidance when a statute criminalizes both generic and non-generic offense conduct.

Vincent Montone Transportation, Inc. v. United States

231 F. Supp. 484 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1964

. *486 “ * * * a certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor authorizing the whole or any part of the operations covered by the application * * * if it is found * * * that the proposed service * * * is … We conclude, therefore, that a need has been established for applicant’s proposed operations to the extent indicated in our findings.” We think the Commission was in error.

HAWK v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2019

Defendants argue that the Rehab Act claim against Defendant BOP is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Sovereign immunity from suits for money damages has not been waived by the Rehab Act.

In re Weisberger

41 F.2d 275 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1930

No system of accounting could be established from that which the bankrupt did produce. … She was.better qualified to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and draw inferences from the testimony than the *277 reviewing court.