LAURENSAU v. FOLINO et al
| JOSEPH LAURENSAU |
| LOUIS S. FOLINO, CRAIG HAYWOOD, MR. FRANK, MR. J. MATTHEWS, JACK W. LIGHTNER, JUSTIN SMITH, MR. CRAMER, MR. FLEMMINGS, MR. MCGRANE, FERNANDO NUNEZ, MR. A. MEGA, MR. PLUCK and MR. YOURKINS |
| 2:2010cv00065 |
| January 15, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Greene |
| Amy Reynolds Hay |
| Prisoner Civil Rights (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
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
72
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting 55 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by FERNANDO NUNEZ, MR. MCGRANE, MR. CRAMER, MR. FLEMMINGS, MR. YOURKINS, MR. A. MEGA, JUSTIN SMITH, MR. PLUCK. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 9/28/2012. [A copy of this Opinion was mailed to Plaintiff on this day at his address of record]. (bb)
|
|
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Dismiss. It is granted as to all claims against Defendants Lightner, Matthews, Frank and Haywood with prejudice. All claims against Defendants Lightner, Matthews and Fran k are time-barred as are the claims against Defendants Smith and Cramer which accrued in July 2006. All claims against Defendant Haywood are either time-barred or fail to state a claim because Haywood's role in denying grievances is insufficien t to render him reliable. It is granted as to all claims that allege the mere filing of false misconduct report(s) violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment and/or Fourteenth Amendment procedural or substantive due process rights and such claims ar e dismissed with prejudice but is denied insofar as Plaintiff alleges that the filing of false misconducts was done in retaliation for Plaintiff's exercise of his rights, which would violate his First Amendmdent rights. It is granted as to Defe ndant Folino whose only alleged wrongdoing in the complaint is his role in the grievance proceedings and Defendant Folino will be dismissed as a party defendant without prejudice. Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss is denied insofar as it so ught dismissal of the procedural due process claims against Defendant Nunez. In addition, pursuant to the screening provision of the PLRA, Plaintiff's putative Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims, as well as the Fourth Amendment and Sixth Amendment claims are dismissed with prejudice. Hence, the only remaining claims are Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for use of excessive force and for cruel conditions of confinement, his procedural due process claims against Defendant Nunez and his First Amendment retaliation claims. Defendants Lightner, Matthews, Frank, Haywood and Folino are dimissed as party defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 6/29/2011. (dgg)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER denying as moot 31 Motion for TRO, which the Court treated as a motion for preliminary injunction. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 3/23/2011. Copy of Order sent to Plaintiff at his address of record. (tmr)
|
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 Western 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.
