Hootstein v. Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee

Justia Dockets & Filings First Circuit Massachusetts District Court Hootstein v. Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee

Hootstein v. Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee

Plaintiff:	Michael Hootstein
Defendant:	Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee
Case Number:	3:2017cv30146
Filed:	October 12, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office:	Springfield Office
County:	Franklin
Presiding Judge:	Katherine A. Robertson
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 11, 2019	Filing 39 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum and order, Defendant's motion to dismiss 12 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As to Count I, Plaintiff may pursue his § 1983 claim based on a bodily integrity theory. Plaintiff may litigate that claim based only on his alleged exposure to lead-contaminated water in Amherst schools. Plaintiff's claims based on a purported right to care for and protect his grandson and a procedural due process violation are both dismissed without prejudice. As described in footnote 8 of the memorandum and order, he may move for leave to amend his complaint to allege facts supporting either or both of those theories. Plaintiff may not pursue his § 1983 claim based on a state-created danger theory, and that theory is dismissed with prejudice. Count II is dismissed with prejudice. The clerk is directed to mail a copy of the memorandum and order to Plaintiff. (Lindsay, Maurice)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 11, 2019

Filing 39 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum and order, Defendant's motion to dismiss 12 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As to Count I, Plaintiff may pursue his § 1983 claim based on a bodily integrity theory. Plaintiff may litigate that claim based only on his alleged exposure to lead-contaminated water in Amherst schools. Plaintiff's claims based on a purported right to care for and protect his grandson and a procedural due process violation are both dismissed without prejudice. As described in footnote 8 of the memorandum and order, he may move for leave to amend his complaint to allege facts supporting either or both of those theories. Plaintiff may not pursue his § 1983 claim based on a state-created danger theory, and that theory is dismissed with prejudice. Count II is dismissed with prejudice. The clerk is directed to mail a copy of the memorandum and order to Plaintiff. (Lindsay, Maurice)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hootstein v. Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Hootstein
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee
Represented By:	David K. McCay
Represented By:	Eva M. Zelnick
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?