Burrell v. Loungo et al
| William L. Burrell, Jr. |
| Patrick Loungo, Richard Gladdys, Ed Adams, Richard Saxton, Trish Corbett, Lackawanna County Prison Board, Robert McMillan, Tom Staff, Brian Jeffers, Jack McPhillips, Todd Frick, John Craig, Louis DeNaples and Kathleen Kane |
| 3:2014cv01891 |
| September 29, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| Lackawanna |
| Susan E. Schwab |
| Robert D. Mariani |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
182
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry), 159 is GRANTED AS MODIFIED, Plaintiffs Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action, Identification of Potential Collective Action Members, and Approval of Notice to Poten tial Collective Action Members; The Court conditionally certifies a collective action consisting of all civilly detained child-support debtors who worked in the Recycling Center after entry of the May 3, 2006, Operating Agreement between LRCI and the Authority; Within SIXTY (60) days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with the full names, last known addresses, cell phone and other telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of work of any individuals described in th e collective action conditional certification identified in the previous paragraph, in a reasonably usable electronic format if it is reasonably practicable to do so. Plaintiffs proposed Notice and Consent to Participate in Collective Action Form are APPROVED. *** SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS *** Signed by Honorable Robert D Mariani on 5/6/2024. (cac)
|
|
Filing
144
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 120 Report and Recommendations. Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 99) is GRANTED; Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 101) is GRANTED; Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 102) is GRANTED; Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 103) is GRANTED. Count I, Count II, Count II I, Count IV, Count V and Count VII of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 77) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Count VI is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defts. Lackawanna County, Lackawanna County Solid Waste Management Authority, and T homas Staff and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defts. Louis DeNaples, Dominick DeNaples, and the Lackawanna County Recycling Center, Inc. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 8/6/21 (jam)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; adopting 50 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 11), is DISMISSED in accordance with the Report and Recommendation (Doc 50). The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 2/23/17. (ga)
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER 1. The Report & Recommendation, (Doc..34), is ADOPTED for the reasons discussed therein. 2. Plaintiffs Objections, (Docs. 36,40), are OVERRULED. The Court, however, will take this opportunity to briefly address one ongoing contention Plaintiff has, namely that this Court may not dismiss any of Plaintiffs claims before Defendants are served on the basis that Plaintiff, a non-prisoner, failed to state aclaim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff cites two cases for this proposition, O atess v. Sobo/evitch, 914 F.2d 429 (3d Cir. 1990), and Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1990). Although Plaintiff is correct that those cases do stand for the proposition that "a district court cannot sua sponte dismiss a complaint under R ule 12(b)(6) before service of process," Oatess, 914 F.2d at 430, those cases provide Plaintiff no shelter. Both of those cases interpreted a subsequently amended 28U.S.C. § 1915. At the time those decisions were issued, 28 U.S.C. § 19 15(d) read U[t]he court... may dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious." In 1996, Congress expanded § 1915, and the relevant provision now reads (2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines thatA) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal is (i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state aclaim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Thus, while it is true that this Court cannot dismiss a claim sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6) be fore service of process, this Court is not pr§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and, under that provision, this Court must dismiss aclaim "at any time if the court determines that... the action... fails to state aclaim on which relief may be granted.&quo t; (emphasis added); see Sigmon v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 460 F. App'x 87,87 n.1 (3d Cir. 2012). As this provision of § 1915 makes no distinction between prisoners and non-prisoners, the fact that Plaintiff is not a prisoner is immaterial. Se e Sigmon, 460 F. App'x at 87-88. 3. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (Doc. 11), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.oceeding under Rule 12(b)(6). Instead, this Court is proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 4. Plaintiff MAY FILE an Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.5. The case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Saporito for further proceedings consistent with this Order.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 12/8/16 (jfg)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
