Flynn v. Department of Corrections et al
| Donald Flynn |
| Department of Corrections, Kathy McCarty, Medical Staff - All, David A. Varano, Thomas Williams, Charles Stetler, M.J. Lahr, Shipe, R.E. Long, Nowell, Terese Jellen, All Mail Inspectors, Michael Corbacio, Charles Custer, John P Sidler, Richards, Scicchatano, Michael Miller, Robin M. Lewis, L.S. Kerns-Barr, Rhonda Ellett and John E. Wetzel |
| 3:2012cv01535 |
| August 8, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| Northumberland |
| JV |
| Richard P. Conaboy |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
127
ORDER - In accord with the accompanying memorandum 126 : 1. The mtn for summary judgment 118 filed by Dfts Stetler, Shipe, and Williams is GRANTED;2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Dfts Charles Stetler, Shipe, and Thomas Williams and against Pltf Donald Flynn; and3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case. Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 1/14/21. (ma)
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER - In accord with the accompanying Memorandum 102 : 1. Dfts partial mtn to dismiss 99 is DENIED; and2. Dfts are DIRECTED to file an answer to the amended complaint 95 within (14) days of the date of this Order.Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 1/27/20. (ma)
|
|
Filing
78
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)As discussed earlier, under Woodford prisoners are required to comply with grievance system procedural rules when exhausting their administrative remedies. Since the undisputed record establishes t hat Flynn' s failure to do so resulted in the rejection of his complaints of retaliation, a finding of non-exhaustion and entry of summary judgment under the well settled Spruill and Woodford standards is appropriate. Rema i ning Defendants ' request for summary judgment will be granted. An appropriate Order will enter.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 3/4/16. (cc)
|
|
Filing
64
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Given the liberal treatment afforded to pro se litigants, the Plaintiff has arguably set forth a viable claim that his exercise of constitutionally protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor for his RHU placement and cell search. Since this Court has been presented with only sparse facts which does not satisfy Remaining Defendants burden of showing that their actions would have been taken regardless of Plaintiffs submission of a grievance, the request for summary judgment will be denied. An appropriate Order will enter.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 2/3/15. (cc)
|
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.
