MARTIN v. CITY OF READING et al
Plaintiff: ERNEST MARTIN
Defendant: CITY OF READING, READING POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM HEIM, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, DANTE ORLANDI, JOHN DOE-1, JOHN DOE-2, JOHN DOE-3, JOHN DOE-4, JOHN DOE-5, JOHN DOE-6, JOHN DOE-7, JOHN DOE-8, JOHN DOE-9, JOHN DOE-10, JOHN DOE-11 and JOHN DOE-12
Case Number: 5:2012cv03665
Filed: June 28, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office: Allentown Office
County: Berks
Presiding Judge: JAMES KNOLL GARDNER
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
August 7, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 135 ORDER AS FOLLOWS:1. DEFENDANT ERRINGTONS MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS EXPERT, KATHLEEN MURRAY, R.N., ECF NO. 89, IS DENIED.2. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS EXPERT, MARK KROLL, ECF NO. 94, IS DENIED.3. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDA NTS FROM OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE OF MR. MARTINS CRIMINAL BACKGROUND OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEACH PLAINTIFFS TESTIMONY WITH EVIDENCE OF HIS PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, ECF NO. 100, IS DENIED.4. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM OFFERING ANY EVID ENCE AT TRIAL REGARDING THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE PLAINTIFF REACHED THE WEST SHORE BYPASS BRIDGE, ECF NO. 101, IS DENIED.25. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE AT TRIAL OR MAKING ANY REFERENCE TO ALLEGED DRUG PA RAPHERNALIA FOUND AT THE SCENE, ECF NO. 102, IS GRANTED.6. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM PRESENTING ANY EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY FROM GLADYS PAINTER OR BARBARA ANN FAIR AT TRIAL, ECF NO. 103, IS DENIED.37. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE A LL DEFENDANTS FROM OFFERING INTO EVIDENCE THE INTEGRATED CASE SUMMARY 13A PAROLE SUMMARY, ECF NO. 104, IS DENIED.8. NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2015, AT 12:00 P.M., EACH PARTY SHALL FILE A BRIEF MEMORANDUM OF LAW ADDRESSING (I) THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATION INTO THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION, AND (II) WHETHER BIFURCATION OF THE TRIAL OF THIS MATTER IS APPROPRIATE.9. NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2015, AT 12:00 P.M., EACH PARTY SHAL L FILE, IF NOT ALREADY FILED, REVISED PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, WHICH SHALL QUOTE OR CITE, AS APPLICABLE, MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS OR CASE CITATIONS. WITH RESPECT TO ANY PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION THAT QUOTES FROM A MODEL JURY INSTRUCTION, SUCH PROPO SED JURY INSTRUCTION SHALL BE MARKED TO SHOW DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION AND THE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTION.10. NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2015, AT 12:00 P.M., EACH PARTY SHALL FILE, IF NOT ALREADY FILED, PROPOSED SPECIAL INTER ROGATORIES. SPECIFICALLY, THE PROPOSED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SHALL ADDRESS ANY FINDINGS OF FACT NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE COURT TO RESOLVE ANY QUESTIONS OF LAW WITH RESPECT TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. SEE CURLEY V. KLEM, 499 F.3D 199, 209-11 (3D CIR. 2007 ) (RECOGNIZING THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER AN OFFICER MADE A REASONABLE MISTAKE OF LAW AND IS THUS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IS A QUESTION OF LAW THAT IS PROPERLY ANSWERED BY THE COURT, NOT A JURY, AND SUGGESTING THE USE OF SPECIAL INTERROGATOR IES TO ALLOW THE JURY TO DETERMINE[] DISPUTED HISTORICAL FACTS MATERIAL TO THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY QUESTION (QUOTING CARSWELL V. BOROUGH OF HOMESTEAD, 381 F.3D 235, 242 (3D CIR. 2004))).11. PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST OF PLAINTIFF DURING THE FINAL PRETRIA L CONFERENCE HELD ON AUGUST 5, 2015, AND LACK OF ANY OBJECTION FROM DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOHN DOE-1 THROUGH JOHN DOE-9 ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 8/7/2015. 8/7/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )
July 31, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 125 ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. DEFENDANT MICHAEL PAVELKO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 84, IS GRANTED, ETC. 2. DEFENDANTS CITY OF READING, READING POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM HEIM, DAMOND KLOC, AND DRIAN ERRINGTON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 87, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, ETC. 3. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 86, IS DENIED, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 7/31/2015. 7/31/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )
January 29, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER THAT THE WTIHIN MOTION TO AMEND IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A SECOND RULE 16 TELEPHONE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE WITH THE UNDERSIGNED IS SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 4, 2015 AT 11:00 O'CLOCK A.M, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 1/28/2015. 1/29/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )
September 30, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF TROOPER PAVEKLO IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF TROOPER PAVELKO IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SEEKS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S PENNSYLVANIA STATE-LAW C LAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT TROOPER PAVEKLO FOR DEFAMATION, FALSE LIGHT, AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BASED UPON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT ALL CLAIMS IN COUNT VI OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT TROOPER PAVELKO ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF THE READING DEFENDANTS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT MOTION TO DISMISS OF THE READING DEFENDANTS IS GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SEEKS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COUNT II IS DISMISSED FROM THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND COUNT III IS DISMI SSED FROM THE AMENDED COMPLAINT TO THE EXTENT IT ASSERTS A CLAIM BASED UPON THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE WITHIN MOTIONS ARE DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL HAVE UNTIL OCTOBER 21, 2013 TO ANSWER THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 9/30/2013. 9/30/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )
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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: MARTIN v. CITY OF READING et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: ERNEST MARTIN
Represented By: EDITH A. PEARCE
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: CITY OF READING
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: READING POLICE DEPARTMENT
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: WILLIAM HEIM
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: THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
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: PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE
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: DANTE ORLANDI
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: JOHN DOE-1
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: JOHN DOE-2
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: JOHN DOE-3
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: JOHN DOE-4
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: JOHN DOE-5
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: JOHN DOE-6
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: JOHN DOE-7
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: JOHN DOE-8
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: JOHN DOE-9
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: JOHN DOE-10
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: JOHN DOE-11
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: JOHN DOE-12
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?