Pilao Ong v. Park Manor (Middletown Park) Rehabiliation and Healthcare Center et al
| Bienvenido Pilao Ong |
| Park Manor (Middletown Park) Rehabiliation and Healthcare Center, Town of Wallkill Police Department and Jason Farmingham |
| 7:2012cv00974 |
| February 6, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Orange |
| Kenneth M. Karas |
| Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
316
OPINION & ORDER re: 282 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Robert Hertman, A. Dewey, Jason Farmingham, Thomas Kleveno. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment is denied as to Plaintiff's claim that Kleveno illegally searched his bedroom on March 30, 2010, Plaintiff's claim that Farmingham illegally searched Plaintiff's refrigerator on August 20, 2010, and Plaintiff's excessive force and f ailure to intervene claims stemming from that same date. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all other claims. The Court will hold a conference on October 30, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. to set a schedule for trial. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Opinion to Plaintiff, and to terminate the pending Motion. (Dkt. No. 282.) SO ORDERED. (Conference set for 10/30/2017 at 02:00 PM before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.) Motion(s) terminated: 293 MOTION (Rule #38[Dkt# 215]) Plaintiff's, assert DEMANDING FOR JURY TRIAL) filed by Bienvenido Pilao Ong. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 9/27/2017) (mml) Modified on 9/28/2017 (rjm).
|
|
Filing
213
OPINION AND ORDER: the Court holds that Defendants Motions are granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's claims against the MPHRCC Defendants, New York State, Mannix, the Orange County Defendants, and the Sholes Defendants are dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice. Plaintiff's claims against Farmingham and Kleveno are dismissed except for Plaintiffs § 1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and failure to intercede claims stemming from t he August 20, 2010 incident. Because Plaintiff has had several chances to amend his complaint, the Court makes clear that Plaintiff may not amend his Complaint at this stage without prior leave of the Court. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions. (Dkt. Nos. 178, 183, 188, 191.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 9/30/2015) (lnl)
|
|
Filing
144
OPINION AND ORDER: In light of the foregoing the Court holds: (1) that all claims against Defendants New York State, Yvette, Tiffany, and Guzman are dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve; (2) that all claims against Defendants Conklin, L abuda, and Lacatena are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend for failure to comply with Rule 8's short-and-plain-statement requirement; (3) that all claims against Defendants Kammarada, McLymore, Belgiovene, Moskowitz, and Leo are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend for failure to comply with Rule 8's short-and-plain-statement requirement; (4) that the Rule 8 Motions filed by Wallkill Defendants, MPRHCC Defendants, and Sholes & Miller are denied with respect to any other Defendant; (5) that the Court's denial of the Rule 8 Motions is without prejudice to Defendants to file another Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to stat a claim; (6) that all claims against Defendant Mannix are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend for failure to state a claim; (7) that all claims against Defendants Orange County, Murphy, and Crain are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend for failure to state a claim; and In deciding whether to file an amended complaint with respect to Defendants Kammarada, McLymore, Belgiovene, Moskowitz, Leo, Murphy, Crain, and Orange County, Plaintiff should be aware that this likely will be his final opportunity to submit an amended complaint. Moreover, if Plaintiff does not comply with the Court's instruction that he allege a Defendants' personal involvement, the Court will dismiss his claims against that Defendant without leave to amend. Finally, in the interest of clarity, the Court directs Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint that contains claims and allegations only against these Defendants. If Plaintiff wishes to attach new exhibits to the Third Amended Complaint, he may do so, b ut those exhibits must be relevant to his allegations against the specific Defendants named in the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this Order to submit the Third Amended Complaint. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motions. (Dkt. Nos. 39, 105, 108, 112, 119.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 9/29/2014) (lnl)
|
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 New York Southern 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.
