PERANO v. ARBAUGH et al
| FRANK T. PERANO |
| SEAN ARBAUGH, RANDY KING and LEE MCDONNELL |
| 5:2010cv01623 |
| April 13, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Allentown Office |
| Lancaster |
| JAMES KNOLL GARDNER |
| 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
30
ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIMS IN COUNT I OF PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT DEFENDANTS VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS PROCEDURAL DUE P ROCESS RIGHTS, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM IS DISMISSED FROM COUNT I OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIMS IN COUNT I OF PLAINTIF FS AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT DEFENDANTS VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS AND VIOLATED HIS FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS BY RETALIATING AGAINST HIM FOREXERCISING THOSE RIGHTS, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS EQU AL PROTECTION CLAIMS AND FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RETALIATION CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED FROM COUNT I OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE A MORE SPECIFIC SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, CONSISTENT WITH THE ACCOMPANYING OPINION, BY APRIL 22, 2011. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II OF PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COUNT II IS DISMISSED FROM THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT III OF PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS, IS GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THA T COUNT III IS DISMISSED FROM THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT OF LEE MCDONNELL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RE LIEF IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF ABSTENTION IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN THE EVENT PLAINTIFF DOES NOT FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY APRIL 22, 2011, PLAINTIFFS REMAINING EQUAL PROTECTION AND FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RETALIATION CLAIMS MAY BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 3/24/11. 3/25/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mas, )
|
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.
