BROWN v. MAY et al

Filing 40

ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 37 , IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: A. THE MOTION IS GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONAL-CAPACITY CLAIMS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS MAY, CARNEY, AND KENNEY IN THEIR PERSONAL-CAPACITIES, AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF RONALD BROWN. B. THE MOTION IS DENIED WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFICIAL-CAPACITY CLAIMS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. C. THE REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS DISMISSED. ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 8, 2019, THE PARTIES SHALL EACH NOTIFY THIS COURT, IN SEPARATE FILINGS, WHETHER THEY WANT TO PROCEED ON THE REMAINING OFFICIAL-CAPACITY CLAIMS WITH EITHER A BENCH TRIAL OR JURY TRIAL.1 UPON RECEIPT OF THE PARTIES RESPONSES, THE COURT WILL SCHEDULE TR IAL PROMPTLY. BROWN IS ADVISED THAT IF HE FAILS TO TIMELY RESPOND, THE CASE WILL BE DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE OR COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 10/23/19. 10/24/19 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(mas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
ROLAND K. BROWN,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
v.
:
:
JERALD MAY, WARDEN AT C.F.C.F.;
:
BLANCH CARNEY, COMMISSIONER;
:
JIM KENNEY, MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA,
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________________

No. 2:16-cv-01873

ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of October, 2019, for the reasons set forth in the Opinion
issued this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 37, is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part as follows:
A.

The Motion is granted with respect to the personal-capacity claims against

all Defendants. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendants May, Carney, and
Kenney in their personal-capacities, and against Plaintiff Ronald Brown.
B.

The Motion is denied with respect to the official-capacity claims against

all Defendants.
C.
2.

The request for punitive damages is dismissed.

On or before November 8, 2019, the parties shall each notify this Court, in

separate filings, whether they want to proceed on the remaining official-capacity claims with
either a bench trial or jury trial. 1 Upon receipt of the parties’ responses, the Court will schedule

1

All parties previously made a jury demand, but the posture of the case has changed.
1

trial promptly. Brown is advised that if he fails to timely respond, the case will be dismissed
without further notice for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. 2

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr._________
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge

2

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d
Cir. 1984). As discussed in the Opinion issued this date, Brown did not respond to the Motion
for Summary Judgment and there has been no contact from him for more than one year.
2