District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Swope v. Central York School District
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2011-06-21 · cited 13×
The case involved a former student with a specific learning disability who alleged that Central York School District failed to provide a free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by not conducting timely re-evaluations or adjusting his individualized education plan, leading to declining academic performance; the student also brought related claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act after withdrawing from the district and graduating elsewhere. The district moved to dismiss, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies for the Section 504 and ADA claims and failure to state a claim under all three statutes. The court granted dismissal of the Section 504 and ADA claims due to the strong exhaustion requirement in disability education disputes, which allows agencies with expertise to develop the record first, but denied dismissal of the IDEA claim, finding it adequately pled a request for compensatory education based on the administrative record.
civil rightsprocedure
Breanne C. Ex Rel. Edward C. v. Southern York County School District
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2010-08-11 · cited 6×
This case involved a dispute between a student with learning disabilities and her school district over whether the district provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, with the parents seeking compensatory education, reimbursement for evaluations and tutoring, and additional damages. The court reviewed the administrative record and cross-motions for judgment, ultimately finding that the district denied FAPE from October 12, 2005, onward. It affirmed the award of one hour per day of compensatory education through September 24, 2008, plus reimbursement for an independent education evaluation, while denying reimbursement for private reading tutoring, private counseling, and further damages under Section 504. The decision upheld the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Special Education Appeals Panel and limited relief based on the findings of the hearing officer and appeals panel regarding the adequacy of the student's IEPs and services during the relevant period.
civil rights
Caldwell v. Luzerne County Corrections Facility Management Employees
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2010-08-11 · cited 26×
The case involves a prisoner, Joshua Caldwell, who filed a § 1983 civil rights action against employees at the Luzerne County Corrections Facility, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights through excessive force during cell extractions on three occasions, retaliation for prior lawsuits on two other occasions, and unconstitutional conditions of confinement including improper use of restraints, tasing, and denial of medical care. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain retaliation claims (such as those involving criminal charges brought by the district attorney) and some conditions-of-confinement allegations while allowing the excessive force claims and remaining conditions claims to proceed. The reasoning centered on the applicable Eighth Amendment standards for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or inhumane conditions, accepting the plaintiff's factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and finding that some but not all allegations stated plausible claims.
civil rightscriminal lawprocedure
Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2010-06-30
The case involved the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) suing Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMC) under CERCLA and state environmental laws to recover costs for cleaning up radioactive Sr-90 contamination at a nuclear site in a state forest, where LMC's predecessor was the last known user of the material. LMC responded with counterclaims against PADEP and a third-party complaint against the Commonwealth and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources seeking contribution for any liability. The court granted the third-party defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the Commonwealth had not waived its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for LMC's claims because they were not defensive recoupment claims that would fit within any potential waiver.
environmentprocedurefederal power
United States v. Walker
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2010-06-11 · cited 1×
Ahmed Walker was convicted after a jury trial on charges of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and other drugs, distribution offenses, and multiple counts of using or carrying firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking. He later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel as well as other trial errors. The court granted the motion in part by vacating the conviction and sentence on Count 4, finding that imposing consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) violated double jeopardy, and ordered resentencing; it denied the motion in all other respects after determining that counsel's performance was not deficient and that no other claims warranted relief.
criminal lawprocedure
Park v. Veasie
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2010-06-09 · cited 5×
In Park v. Veasie, parents Michael and Brandy Park, along with their minor children, sued police chief Gary Veasie, officers Michael Bogart and Brian Markochik, and the Borough of Weatherly after officers searched their home on September 18, 2008, based on statements obtained from their seven-year-old son during a school interrogation conducted without a parent present. The complaint alleged that the search warrant was obtained solely from the child's statements, that officers entered with guns drawn without announcement, detained family members for five hours, and found no illegal substances, leading to dismissed charges. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion as to the Fourth Amendment claims against the individual officers in their personal capacities and as to the state law claims, but granted it in other respects, including municipal liability claims against the borough, while granting leave to amend certain claims. The core reasoning was that the pleaded facts sufficiently alleged violations by the individual officers but did not adequately establish a municipal policy or custom under Monell standards.
criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure