MONROE v. DIGUGLIELMO et al

Filing 25

ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANTS DIGUGLIELMO, DOHMAN, KARAZAN, MCGREGORY, BRIGHT AND HAYES (DOC. NO. 22) IS GRANTED IN PART AND PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST HAYES AND JOHN DOE #7 ARE DIS MISSED. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT DIGUGLIELMO ARE DISMISSED. COUNT I OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS IS DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY. COUNT II ALLEGING RETAILIATION IS DISMISSED TO THE EXT ENT THAT IT ASSERTS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DIGUGLIELMO, KARAZAN, MCGREGORY BRIGHT HARGROVE ABD JOHN DOES 1-6. PLAINTFF IS PERMITTED TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY 8/23/13, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 7/31/13. 8/1/13 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EDWARD L. MONROE
v.
DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, et al.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 10-3798

ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2013, upon consideration of the motion to dismiss
plaintiff Edward L. Monroe’s first amended complaint filed by defendants David DiGuglielmo,
Thomas Dohman, Lt. Karanzan and Corrections Officers McGregory, Bright and Hayes (Dkt.
No. 22) and plaintiff’s response in opposition thereto (Dkt. No. 23), and consistent with the
accompanying memorandum of law, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART and:
1)

Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Hayes and John Doe 7 are
DISMISSED.

2)

Plaintiff’s claims against defendant DiGuglielmo are DISMISSED.

3)

Count I of plaintiff’s amended complaint alleging a violation of his right
of access to the courts is DISMISSED in its entirety.

4)

Count II of plaintiff’s amended complaint alleging retaliation is
DISMISSED to the extent that it asserts claims against defendants
DiGuglielmo, Karanzan, McGregory, Bright, Hargrove and John Does 16.

As a result of this ruling, the only claim remaining in this lawsuit is plaintiff’s retaliation
claim against defendant Dohman.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that on or before August 23, 2013, plaintiff is permitted to
file a second amended complaint to the extent that he is able to allege facts sufficient to support
his dismissed claims. If plaintiff elects not to file a second amended complaint, he shall file a
notice of his intent to stand on the remaining claim in his amended complaint on or before
August 23, 2013.

s/Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.
THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., J.

2