Case law

Velardo v. Lewko

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2019

immunity at this stage of the proceedings. … Finally, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Carlson properly concluded that Defendants’ are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. (See Doc. 28 at 24-26.)

Mazzeo

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

| Two qualifying clauses were used in Paragraph 45. … the official established or enforced policies and practices directly causing the constitutional violation.”

United States v. Adigun

998 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2014

However, an appellate court must accept the trial court’s Batson decision unless it is clearly erroneous. Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 365-69 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 ; United States v. DeJesus, 347 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir.2003). … The mere request of a specific instruction, without a clearly articulated objection to the court’s subsequent refusal to provide it, is not sufficient. See Virgin Islands v. Knight, 989 F.2d 619, 631 (3d Cir.1993).

Muhammad v. Kane

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2024

Thus, plaintiff does not qualify for relief under the imminent danger exception to the three-strkes rule. His motion for leave to proceed IFP will be denied. … Under the circumstances here, there are no facts where plaintiff would be entitled to relief under the action proposed in his complaint and any amendment would clearly be | futile.

Muhammad v. Kane

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2024

Thus, plaintiff does not qualify for relief under the imminent danger exception to the three-strkes rule. His motion for leave to proceed IFP will be denied. … Under the circumstances here, there are no facts where plaintiff would be entitled to relief under the action proposed in his complaint and any amendment would clearly be | futile.

Roy v. Cohen

590 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1984

Moreover, even assuming that such power exists, it appears that Defendant Heckler is immune from the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages because her conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Defendants acted pursuant to a clearly-expressed statutory requirement and we therefore see no basis for holding them individually liable.

Sharrow v. Bailey

910 F. Supp. 187 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 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. ADA claims against Dr. … The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.

Muhammad v. Kane

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2024

Thus, plaintiff does not qualify for relief under the imminent danger exception to the three-strikes rule. His motion for leave to proceed IFP will be denied. 2. … Under the circumstances here, there are no facts where plaintiff would be entitled to relief under the action proposed in his complaint and any amendment would clearly be futile.

Haas v. Wyoming Valley Health Care System

465 F. Supp. 2d 429 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2006

Defendant clearly had a right — and a duty — to ensure that all physicians working at the Hospital performed their duties safely and skillfully. … In order to establish a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a “handicapped individual” under the Act 8 ; (2) he is “otherwise qualified” for participation in the program or activity, or

Bair

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

Pennsylvania has waived its sovereign immunity in those instances. … Trooper Snyder, in the end, might be able to invoke sovereign immunity as a defense; but such is a question for another day, because he cannot establish that defense on his motion to dismiss.

Edwards v. White

501 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1979

The Court concludes that Mazurkiewicz’s affidavit is not sufficient to establish immunity from damages by reason of Mazurkiewicz’s good faith. … Defendants will have the opportunity at trial to establish their defenses to Edwards’ claim for damages.

James

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2026

To establish a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that: “(1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some public entity's … Noting in the alleged facts demonstrate that Miller has alleged he is a qualified individual with a disability.

Wilson v. United States

585 F. Supp. 202 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1984

In August 1981, the Office of Personnel and Management (O.P.M.) conducted an audit at Lewisburg and concluded that the plaintiff was “not qualified” for the position of Machinist Foreman and should be demoted. … The documents submitted by the defendants demonstrate quite clearly that the plaintiff’s demotion occurred as a result of the O.P.M. audit. In addition, this evidence shows that O.P.

Faust v. RCA Corp.

612 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 1985

Such a provision clearly changes the meaning of the collective bargaining agreement and is, therefore, preempted by that agreement. … The six month statute of limitations, here, has clearly expired. See DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 , 103 S.Ct. 2281 , 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983).

Doe v. Riverside School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2024

These allegations are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference by the District to maintain a § 1983 claim against it. … The exception waives immunity for “Sexual abuse.-- . . .

Russo

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2026

from Russo’s state tort claims for assault and battery; and (3) they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Russo’s constitutional claims. … A defendant’s after-the-fact review and denial of a prisoner’s grievance is not sufficient to establish the defendant’s personal involvement. Dooley v.

Intersimone v. Carlson

512 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1980

The court concluded in part that all of the jurors had absolute immunity for damages which result from their jury service. … Under the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Procunier v.

Ramey v. Holt

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2022

State Sovereign Immunity Even if Ramey were able to establish Defendants’ personal involvement, his claims are barred by sovereign immunity. … immunity.

Harrisburg Coalition Against Ruining the Environment v. Volpe

330 F. Supp. 918 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 1971

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY Secretary Kassab and J. Robert Bazley, Inc. raise the defense of sovereign immunity to this action relying on Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Inc. v. Bartlett, supra. … Since it is well established that the defense of sovereign immunity will not shield unconstitutional action, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908); C. A.

Sealander v. Brague

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2019

Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1461-62 (3d Cir.1992).2 A prosecutor bears the “heavy burden” of establishing entitlement to absolute immunity. Light v. Haws, 472 F.3d 74, 80–81 (3d Cir.2007) (quoting Forsyth v. … Considering the Supreme Court's “quite sparing” recognition of absolute immunity to § 1983 liability, we begin with the presumption that qualified rather than absolute immunity is appropriate. Carter v.