WILSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 155

ORDER THAT DEFT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE REMAINING CLAIMS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY DEFTS CONCERNING THE DA DEFTS' ALLEGED ACTIONS ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, ETC.. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 5/8/13. 5/10/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(lvj, ) Modified on 5/10/2013 (lvj, ).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAROLD C. WILSON Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. Defendants. : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-5396 ORDER AND NOW, this 8th day of May, 2013, having considered the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings filed by Defendant R. Seth Williams, the District Attorney of Philadelphia (Doc. #121), Plaintiff’s response thereto (Doc. #123), Defendant’s Reply (Doc. #125), and the arguments of counsel to the court, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining claims against the individual District Attorney Defendants (“DA Defendants”) concerning the DA Defendants’ alleged actions during the investigation phase are dismissed with prejudice per Plaintiff’s concession at oral argument. See Transcript of Motion Hearing 3/22/13, at 13-14 (Doc. # 135). BY THE COURT: /s/ L. Felipe Restrepo L. FELIPE RESTREPO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.


Why Is My Information Online?