Cardona v. Bledsoe et al
| Jose Cristobal Cardona |
| B.A. Bledsoe, A.W. Hudson, B Trate, C/O Anderson, Fleming, Harrel Watts, J. L Norwood and Harley Lappin |
| 3:2011cv00054 |
| January 7, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| Union |
| SF |
| James M. Munley |
| 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
133
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Doc. 68) is GRANTED. 2. The claims against Defendants Lappin, Watts, Keffer, Townsend, Bracy, Maldonado, and Dodrill are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER judgment in favor of all remaining Defendants and against Plaintiff. 4. All other pending Motions (Docs. 106, 114, 120, 125) are DENIED. 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 6. Any appeal from this Order is DEEMED frivolous and not in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 9/20/12. (jfg)
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 50), de novo review of Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report & Recommendation (Doc. 94), Plaintiff's Objections to the Report &Recommendation (Doc. 98), and Plain tiff's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and Protective Order (Doc. 90), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 98) are SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART. After reviewing Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certifica tion (Doc. 50) and Objections (Doc. 98), the Court sustains Plaintiff's objection that he requested the appointment of counsel in his prayer for relief. The Court overrules all other objections. 2. Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report &Recomme ndation (Doc. 94) is ADOPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART. The Court adopts Magistrate Carlson's recommendation to deny class certification. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff clearly asked for appointment of counsel as an alternative to Pl aintiff's serving as class representative in his prayer for relief and rejects Judge Carlson's conclusion that "it is abundantly clear that Cardona has not requested the appointment of... counsel." (Doc. 94 at 12). The Court deter mines that an appointment of counsel is not appropriate at this time under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), and adopts Magistrate Judge Carlson's recommendation that appointment of counsel is inappropriate (Doc. 94 at 12, n.3). 3. Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 50) is DENIED. 4. Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 50) is DENIED. 5. Plaintiffs Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and Protective Order (Doc. 90) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 2/6/12 (jfg)
|
|
Filing
89
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 61) is DENIED.2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement his Amended Complaint (Doc. 64) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Court to Rule (Doc. 85) on his Motions (Docs. 61, 64) is DENIED as moot.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 12/28/11. (jfg)
|
|
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM and ORDER DENYINg application to proceed IFP 2 ; VACATING 5 Administrative Order & directing Clerk of Court to mail copy of this order to Warden @ LEwisburg; Directing pltf to submit payment of $268.78 w/i 21 days of this order ; Failure of pltf to comply will result in case being dismissed w/o prejudice.Signed by Honorable James M. Munley on 5/12/11. (sm, )
|
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 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.
