Stockton v. Wetzel et al
| Ronald Stockton |
| John Wetzel, John Fisher, L. OIiver, D. Myers, M. J. Biser, J. Whitesal, Allison, Bard, Miller, Willinsy, Harpster, Wilson, Barndt, Mallisa and Amy Himes |
| 1:2016cv00613 |
| April 12, 2016 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Harrisburg Office |
| Centre |
| PT |
| William W. Caldwell |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
496
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 454 Fifth MOTION in Limine SEEKING TO PRECLUDE ANY EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, OR ARGUMENT PERTAINING TO ALLEGED CAMERA BLUEPRINTS filed by Melissa Houck, A. Parks, Bard, Willinsky, Wilson, Barndt, Harpster, 450 Third MOTION in Limine SEEKING TO PRECLUDE ANY MENTION, DISCUSSION, OR ARGUMENT TO THE JURY REGARDING A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS' FEES, & LITIGATION COSTS filed by Melissa Houck, A. Pa rks, Bard, Willinsky, Wilson, Barndt, Harpster, 446 First MOTION in Limine SEEKING TO PRECLUDE ANY EXPERT EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, & ARGUMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED INJURIES & ALLEGED DAMAGES filed by Melissa Houck, A. Parks, Bard, Willinsky, Wilson, Barndt, Harpster, 452 Fourth MOTION in Limine SEEKING TO PRECLUDE ANY EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, OR MENTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED PROTECTED CONDUCT UNDERLYING HIS RETALIATION CLAIM filed by A. Parks, Bard, Willinsky, Wilson, Barndt, Harpster, 432 MOTION in Limine filed by Ronald Stockton, 448 Second MOTION in Limine SEEKING TO PRECLUDE ANY EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, OR ARGUMENT PERTAINING TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS' POLICIES filed by Melissa Houck, A. Parks, Bard, Willinsky, Wilson, Barndt, Harpster, 443 MOTION in Limine filed by Ronald Stockton. Signed by Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson on 10/23/2025. (ve)
|
|
Filing
481
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 469 MOTION for Reconsideration re 440 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by Ronald Stockton. Signed by Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson on 10/6/2025. (ve)
|
|
Filing
434
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 417 MOTION Inspect and View of Primises filed by Ronald Stockton. Signed by Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson on 8/12/2025. (ve)
|
|
Filing
311
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 307 MOTION of Defendants Foreiture of Counsel filed by Ronald Stockton, 257 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Ronald Stockton, 300 MOTION for Contempt filed by Ronald Stockton, 261 MOTION in Limine filed by Ronald Stockton. Signed by Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson on 9/6/2023. (ve)
|
|
Filing
279
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 255 MOTION for Reconsideration re 235 Order on Motion to Compel Discovery filed by Ronald Stockton, 268 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order fil ed by Ronald Stockton, 270 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Ronald Stockton, 272 MOTION Attorney Generals Office to Recuse Themselves from this Matter Due to Conflict of Interest and Misconduct filed by Ronald Stockton. Signed by Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson on 2/7/2023. (ve)
|
|
Filing
236
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment re Conspiracy Claim filed by Melissa Houck, A. Parks, Bard, Willinsky, Wilson, Barndt, Harpster. Signed by Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson on 9/6/2022. (ve)
|
|
Filing
135
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry) - IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (Doc. 118) is DENIED. 2. Plaintiffs motion to compel (Doc. 126) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.3. Plaintiffs motion to compel the disclosure of Administrative Policy 6.5.1 is DENIED. 4. Plaintiffs motion to compel the reproduction of documents previously produced in discovery is GRANTED. Thirty (30) days prior to the pretrial conference in this matter Commonwealth De fendants shall produce all discovery materials for Stocktons inspection. The pretrial conference inthis matter will be set at courts discretion. 5. Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 128) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson on 4/30/2020. (ve)
|
|
Filing
117
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 95 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 10/2/2019 (bg)
|
|
Filing
89
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Based on these findings, allowing Stockton to file an amendment, at this point in the litigation would not only be futile, but prejudicial to the parties as discovery ended in this case several mon ths ago. See Berger v. Edewater Steel Co., 911 F.2d 911, 923-24 (3d Cir. 1990) (denying motion to add additional claims made four months after new information became available and two months after close of extended discovery); Ahmed v. Ringler, No. 2:13-CV-1050, 2017 WL 30017, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2017); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (A need to reopen discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a district court's finding of prejudice from delayed motion to amend the complaint.); Priddy v. Edelman, 883 F.2d 438, 447 (6th Cir. 1989) (Putting the defendants through the time and expense of continued litigation on a new theory, with the possibility of additional discovery , would be manifestly unfair and unduly prejudicial.); Bassani v. Sutton, 430 Fed.Appx. 596, 597 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the district court's ultimate conclusionsthat there would be undue delay and prejudice to the defendants if [the plain tiff] were allowed to amend his complaint two years into litigation and after the close of discoverywere not an abuse of discretion.). An appropriate order will follow. re 76 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by Ronald Stockton Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 7/17/18. (cc)
|
|
Filing
73
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Thus, the Court will deny Stockton's request to compel the production of the original copy of the investigative report concerning the December 20, 2013, incident. (See Memorandum) re 54 MOTION to Compel filed by Ronald Stockton Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 5/4/18. (cc)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER: In accord with the accompanying Memorandum 47 ; 1. The Dfts' mtn to dismiss 41 is granted in part and denied in part.2. Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 18 and 20, Stockton's claims related to CO Kanagy and HEX Himes are dismissed without pre judice.3. Stockton's Eighth Amendment claims against the Supervisory Dfts (Secretary Wetzel, Supt. Fisher, Deputy Oliver, Deputy Whitesal, Major Myers, Lt. Allison and CCPM Biser) are dismissed.4. Stockton's conspiracy claims against Nurse Houck and the Supervisory Dfts fail are dismissed.5. Stockton's claims against the Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed.6. This action will proceed on the following claims against the identified dfts:(a) Stockton's Eighth A mendment excessive-force claim arising from the events of 12/20/13, against Lt. Bard, Sgt. Miller, CO Willinsky, CO Harpster, CO Wilson, CO Barndt and CO Parks.(b) Stockton's Eighth Amendment claim against Nurse Houck for denial of medical care following the 12/20/13 useof-force event.(c) Stockton's First Amendment retaliation claim against Lt.Bard, Sgt. Miller, CO Willinsky, CO Harpster, CO Wilson, CO Barndt, CO Parks and Nurse Houck.7. The remaining Dfts are granted (21) days from th e date of this order to file an answer to the Amended Complaint.8. Dfts' unopposed mtn to stay discovery 43 is granted for the time period it took the court to resolve Dfts mtn to dismiss.9. Dfts shall respond to Stockton's pending discovery requests within (30) days of the date of this order.Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 7/18/17. (ma)
|
|
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM re. dfts' mtn for exttm 23 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 7/11/16. (ma)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Middle 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.
