We are considering Plaintiffs’ request for permanent injunctive relief. Plaintiffs, a group of street preachers and protesters, were either arrested or threatened with arrest at events in the City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, mostly on charges of disorderly conduct. They filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that their First Amendment rights had been violated. They named as defendant, Stephen R. Reed, the Mayor of Harrisburg, in his official capacity. The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and nominal and compensatory damages.
The Middle District of Pennsylvania offers a database of opinions for the years 1999 to 2012, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
1:CV-02-0977 DIENER, et al. v. REED, Mayor of Harrisburg, PAJudge:File:
1: CV-02-1734 KAHN v. KENNETH ELWOOD, District Director, INSJudge:File:
Before the court are the following motions: (1) Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal Pending Resolution of Appeal from Order of District Court; (2) Respondents’ Motion to Lift the Stay of Removal; and (3) Respondents’ motion for an Expedited Decision.
3:CV-97-616 PAUL v. HEARST CORP.File:
The background of this case has been well detailed in this Court’s prior orders and in the December 27, 2001 opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and therefore the recitation of facts here will be brief. Dr. Steven E. Paul was featured in a sidebar to an article in the May 1996 issue of Redbook Magazine entitled “Bad Medicine: The Doctors Who Could Cost You Your Life.” This sidebar profiled six doctors, including Dr. Paul. Because of the article and the associated profile, Dr. Paul and his wife filed a suit for libel per se and false light in the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County, Pennsylvania in March of 1997. Defendants Removed the action to this Court in April of 1997.
1:CV 02-0384 MORROW v. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.File:
On March 10, 2001, four year old Plaintiff Renee Morrow boarded the “Norwegian Wind,” a cruise ship owned and operated by Defendant Norwegian, for a cruise departing from and returning to Miami, Florida. Sometime prior to boarding the ship, Plaintiff’s parents purchased tickets for the family. These tickets included a passenger ticket contract with a forum selection clause. This clause required all lawsuits for injuries that occurred while on the cruise to be brought in Dade Country, Florida.
1:CV-01-1725 BELL v. ROSSOTTI, et al.File:
On September 10, 2001, Plaintiff Thurston Bell, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti in his official capacity, and IRS agents Chris Roginsky and Kathleen Lennon in their official and individual capacities. In his suit, Bell seeks (1) a declaratory judgment that his websites and their content are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, (2) an injunction against Defendants preventing them from approaching him and his family, and (3) compensatory damages in the amount of $30,000 and punitive damages of $1,000,000 from each of the Defendants sued in their individual capacities for violations of his First Amendment rights.
1:CV-99-2190 PIPER v. AMERICAN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS, et al.File:
Plaintiffs Donald E. Piper, Sr. (“Mr. Piper”) and Diana L. Piper (“Mrs. Piper”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) make the following allegations against defendants. On November 19, 1998, Plaintiffs discussed the purchase of health insurance coverage with an insurance salesperson named Dennis Shillen (“Mr. Shillen”). Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Shillen was recruited and trained by NBA, and that he was an authorized agent of American National. Plaintiffs filled out and signed an application for group health insurance that would be provided by American National. In order to be enrolled in the group policy, which was issued by American National to NBA, Plaintiffs were required to become members of NBA. Therefore, Plaintiffs joined NBA at the same time they applied for the health insurance, paying a $12 fee for the membership.
3:01cr151 USA v. MARCUS ANTHONY WILMINGTONJudge:File:
The facts underlying the instant criminal case are as follows: Kirk Schwartz, a detective with the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office, and Ronald Paret, an agent with the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Narcotics, boarded and searched a Greyhound Bus stopped at the Delaware W ater Gap Toll Plaza. The defendant, Marcus Anthony Wilmington, was a p assenger o n the bus. The authorities allegedly searched a bag on the bus and found three kilograms of cocaine. No one on the bus, including the defendant, claimed the bag in which the cocaine was found. The defendant claimed to have one bag, and he allowed the officials to search it. The officials connected the bag containing the cocaine to Wilmington based upon the contents of the bag that Wilmington claimed and allow ed them to search. The officials arrested the de fendant. He is charged with distribution of a controlled substance, specifically in excess of 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1). The defendant is free on bail pending trial. He has filed the instant suppression motion.
3:cv-01-2177 AMAYE v. ELWOOD, et al.Judge:File:
On November 16, 2001, Petitioner, an alien in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), detained at the York County Prison, York, Pennsylvania, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). This case is currently before us via Magistrate Judge Smyser’s Report and Recommendation filed on February 15, 2002. (Doc. 12). The Petitioner is proceeding pro se. The Report and Recommendation recommends “that since the Petitioner has not applied to the INS for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(2), waiver of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(7), or asylum pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158, those claims be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It is further recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be granted, that the removal order be vacated and that the petitioner be released from custody. In the alternative, it is recommended that the case be remanded to the INS for a review of the petitioner’s detention as set forth” in the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 12). The Respondent filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on February 25, 2002. (Doc. 14).
1: CV 01-2136 Churches of God, et al. v. MATAMORAS COMMUNITY CHURCHFile:
This action brought by individual members of the Churches of God seeks to enjoin the Matamoras Community Church from employing ministers not credentialed by the Churches of God and otherwise practicing their faith in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution and bylaws of the Churches of God. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendant from “using church property in ways not sanctioned by the Churches of God.” Compl. at p. 8. Now before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court held oral argument on March 14, 2002. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted.
1:CV 00-1269 COSTENBADER-JACOBSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al.File:
Plaintiff, formerly Assistant Director of the Pennsylvania Lottery (“Lottery”), alleges that during the course of her employment she was discriminated against because of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff also alleges that she was ultimately discharged in retaliation for the claim of discrimination she filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and that the discharge thus violated Title VII and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and venue is proper. Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment, which has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.