SNIDER v. GILMORE et al
| JOEL SNIDER |
| ROBERT GILMORE, PUSHKALAI PILLAI, NEDRA GREGO, JOHN MCANANY, E. VALKO, TRACY SHREEVE, OFFICER LUCACHEK, OFFICER KING, OFFICER HAGGETER, SERGEANT DAVIS, CAPTAIN SCHRADER, JAY GARDNER, GREGORY JOHNSON, SHELLY MANKEY, SUSAN COWAN, CARLA SWARTZ, K. THOMAS, R. MCCOMBIE, TRACY SHAWLEY, MARK DIALESANDRO, L.S. KERNS-BARR, DEB RAND, DAN CARO, JAMIE BOYD, DORINA VARNER, JOHN WETZEL, SCI GREENE, PA DOC, UNITED STATES, US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNKNOWN DEFENDANT ONE and UNKNOWN DEFENDANT TWO |
| 2:2018cv00735 |
| June 5, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Somerset |
| Lisa Pupo Lenihan |
| Prisoner Civil Rights (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
276
ORDER denying 274 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of a Psychiatric Expert for Purpose of Obtaining a Certificate of Merit for Professional Liability Claims and denying 275 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of a Medical Expert for Purpose of Obtaining a Certificate of Merit for Professional Liability Claims. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on October 6, 2020. (kcb)
|
|
Filing
194
MEMORANDUM ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Stay of Motions to Dismiss and Deadline to Amend Pending Resolution of Appellate Matters and of Action for Injunctive Relief, (Doc. 193 ), is DENIED. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 5/28/20. (wss)
|
|
Filing
174
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate's [sic] Granting of Time Extension for Responsive Filing to Medical Defendants, (Doc. 170 ), are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART. Plaintiff's Objections to Docs. 118, 155, 136, 138, 157, and 158, (Doc. 171 ), are OVERRULED. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 4/23/20. (wss)
|
|
Filing
123
ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. 122), is DENIED. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 2/5/20. (wss)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER denying 115 Motion to Consolidate Cases; denying 115 Motion to Stay; denying as moot 116 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; denying as moot 117 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on January 15, 2020. (kcc)
|
|
Filing
109
MEMORANDUM ORDER. Plaintiff's Objections, (Doc. 108 ), are SUSTAINED. The Court's Orders dated November 26, 2019 dismissing this action with prejudice and entering final judgment, (Docs. 102 and 103 ), are VACATED and this case is REOPE NED. Plaintiff's Motion to Merge Cases, (Doc. 67 ), is DENIED. The Court's Order dated November 15, 2019, (Doc. 93), is VACATED and Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Leave to Supplement the Complaint, (Doc. 92 ), is GRANTED. The Cler k of Court is DIRECTED to STRIKE the Amended Complaint at Doc. 95 and to FILE the Supplementary Complaint at Doc. 92-1 as a Supplementary Complaint in this matter. The Court's Order dated November 20, 2019, (Doc. 98), is VACATED and Plaintiff&# 039;s Motion to Correct Docket, (Doc. 97 ), is DENIED AS STATED. If Plaintiff wishes to, he may refile his "Notice of Withdrawal of Class Claims," which appears in Civil Action No. 18-703, in this case as well. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's Order dated December 10, 2019, (Doc. 106), is VACATED and Plaintiff's Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Bissoon's Nov. 6, 2019 Memorandum Order Regarding Mental Health Evaluation, (Doc. 104 ), is GRANTED. Plaintiff has, at Doc. 104-1, provided the Court with evidence from his treating providers that a court order is required for Plaintiff's mental health conditions to be evaluated. Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's current m ental health providers at the facility at which he is housed shall arrange for a mental health evaluation of Mr. Snider to take place. The evaluation should, to the extent possible, memorialize Mr. Snider's current diagnoses, primary symptoms a nd corresponding limitations, and his prescribed medications and the efficacy of those medications. The Court's preference is for this evaluation to be performed by mental health professional at the facility who is familiar with Mr. Snider's care, but an evaluation by an "independent person" would be accepted. This evaluation should be received by the Court within 60 days of this Order. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 12/17/19. (wss)
|
|
Filing
90
MEMORANDUM ORDER. Plaintiff Joel Snider's Objections, (Doc. 89), are OVERRULED. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 11/6/19. (wss)
|
|
Filing
82
MEMORANDUM ORDER. Plaintiff's Objections, (Doc. 80), are OVERRULED in part, and DENIED AS MOOT in part. Plaintiff's Discovery Motion, (Doc. 70), and Stay Motion, (Doc. 71), are DENIED and the Orders at Doc. 73 and 74 are ADOPTED as Opinions of the District Court. Plaintiff's request for additional time to Amend his Complaint is GRANTED, and he shall file an Amended Complaint on or before 11/2/19. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 10/3/19. (wss)
|
|
Filing
66
MEMORANDUM ORDER. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 63 ) to Magistrate Judge Lenihan's Memorandum Order (Doc. 59 ) denying Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 40 ) are OVERRULED. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 8/14/19. (wss)
|
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 Western 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.
