Case law

Wyatt v. Municipality of Commonwealth of Harrisburg

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

To put it plainly, considering that “[t]he immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is . . . well established” in the common law, Pierson v. … [s],” their correspondence to in Wyatt | & // Plaintiff would only qualify as privileged under DC-ADM 803 if they applied for and obtained a control number from the DOC.

Lawson v. Gerlinski

332 F. Supp. 2d 735 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2004

As there are only 200 such visas available annually, the criteria that must be met to qualify for such a petition is considerable. … It is not clearly evident that you would appear as required for removal. You currently have a stay of removal and a final Order of Deport.

Gavilan-Cruz v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

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

Personal Involvement It is well established that, in Section 1983 actions, liability cannot be “predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.” Rode v. … Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, agencies, and private businesses do not qualify as “persons.” See Will v. Mich.

Johnson, Sr. v. USP-Canaan

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2023

in order to determine whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right (citation omitted)); Giles v. … Kearney, 571 F. 3d 318, 326 (3d Cir. 2009) (stating that, although “[t]he issue of qualified immunity is generally a question of law, . . . a genuine issue of material fact will preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity

Kohr v. Rivello

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

was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”36 Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, medical departments, or private medical companies generally do not qualify … State itself.”48 States may waive this immunity if they choose, but Pennsylvania has explicitly not waived its immunity with respect to claims brought under Section 1983.49 There are two exceptions to the Eleventh

Fritz v. Allied Services Foundation d/b/a Allied Services Integrated Health System

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

| Furthermore, to establish a prima facie case of association discrimination, « plaintiff must prove the following: | (1) the plaintiff was “qualified” for the job at the time of the | … Furthermore, “[t]he Third Circuit has established that ‘protesting what an employee believes in good faith to be a discriminatory | 13 | practice is clearly protected conduct.’

Smith v. Wambaugh

29 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1998

Wambaugh clearly is not a state official or employee, and therefore some conduct by which private persons may be said to act under color of state law must have occurred. … Immunity does not change the character of the judge’s action or that of his co-conspirators.

Aetna Life Insurance v. Mitchell

180 F. Supp. 674 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 1960

It treats the case as one to be established by evidence, and lays the burden of proof on him who claims survivorship. * * * » 11 P.L.E. … The proceeds of this policy, under the circumstances of this case, are clearly payable to the brothers and sisters of the insured not derivatively through their brother, the slayer-insured, under the Intestate Laws of either

Demko v. Luzerne County Community College

113 F. Supp. 2d 722 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2000

Northampton addressed issues unrelated to those sub judice — the court addressed nullum tern-pus and the related doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Clearly, being labeled a sexual harasser is stigmatizing. Demko adamantly denied the charge.

Doe

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

Plaintiff again denies this point, Doc. 167 ¶ 42, but B.M.’s testimony clearly establishes that he recalls a pre-trip meeting at which Myrtle Beach was discussed. … [it] was not deliberately indifferent.”283 Here, the undisputed record establishes that WASD’s response was not clearly unreasonable.

Todd v. Derry Township

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2025

Title II provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of … be futile because Judge Schwab would be entitled to absolute immunity from claims arising out of her performance of her judicial duties. , 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991); , 228 F.

Pennsylvania v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

948 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2013

Further, Plaintiff must establish that Defendant’s action affected the kind of antitrust activity over which this Court has jurisdiction. D. … Thus, for the same reasons the Third Circuit found eligibility rules iim mune from antitrust scrutiny, [the Court] fínd[s] that these recruiting rules are also immune.” Id.

Grier by Grier v. Galinac

740 F. Supp. 338 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1990

. § 1983 and hence that a claim against a municipality had to satisfy the well established requirement that there be a custom or policy. … Qualified immunity, also argued by defendants, can be dealt with at a later stage of these proceedings. 5 .

McClendon v. Doe

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

The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suits against the United States or its agencies unless the government has waived that immunity. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). … Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 72 (2001) (“If a federal prisoner in a BOP facility alleges a constitutional deprivation, he may bring a Bivens claim against the offending individual officer, subject to the defense of qualified immunity

Boose

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2026

DISCUSSION Defendants seek summary judgment because Johnson failed to exhaust administrative remedies, because his claims fail on their merits, and because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the court ultimately finds that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the merits of Johnson's claims, it does not consider defendants’ exhaustion and qualified immunity arguments.

NBT Bank v. First National Community Bank

287 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2003

Bank to convert a check into a “qualified returned check.” … Conversion of a check to a "qualified returned check” enables high speed processing of the check.

Thornley v. Edwards

671 F. Supp. 339 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1987

Correspondence qualifies as “special mail” only if it meets two requirements: (1) the sender is adequately identified on the envelope and (2) the “special mail” marking is inscribed on the front of the envelope. … establish that opening legal mail outside the presence of the addressee/inmate chills his sixth amendment right of free access to the courts.

Lackey v. Attinger

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2021

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. See Lavia v. Pa. … If Lackey decides to file an amended complaint, he must clearly label the document “Amended Complaint.”

James Ex Rel. James v. Richman

465 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2006

Under the Act, the states are granted federal funding to establish plans to dispense assistance to qualified needy individuals. … individual or the individual’s spouse established the trust.”

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

400 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2005

The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity. … Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex.