JOHN DOE I et al v. WOLF et al
| JOHN DOE I and JOHN DOE II |
| THOMAS W. WOLF, BRUCE R. BEEMER, TYREE V. BLOCKER and PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE |
| 2:2016cv06039 |
| November 17, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Dauphin |
| JOEL H. SLOMSKY |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
80
ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 61 ) IS DENIED. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 65 ) IS GRANTED. JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 1/10/2019. 1/11/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 13 ) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. DEFENDANTS GOVERNOR THOMAS W. WOLF, ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH SHAPIRO, AND THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE ARE DISMISSED AS DEFENDANTS. THE MOTION TO DISMISS IN REGARD TO D EFENDANT COLONEL TYREE V. BLOCKER IS DENIED. DEFENDANT COLONEL BLOCKER SHALL REMAIN AS A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE. DEFENDANT COLONEL TYREE IS ORDERED TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 21 DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 8/23/2017. 8/23/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )
|
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 Eastern 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.
