KASHKASHIAN v. MARKY et al
OPINION/ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NOS. 28, 30 AND 37) ARE DENIED. THE MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 22) IS GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THE MOTION TO DIMSISS (DOC. NO. 35) IS GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE AND THESE DEFENDANTS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THIS ACTION, ETC. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SERVICE (DOC. NO. 23) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 11/17/17. 11/17/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E-MAILED. (ky, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DR. JOHN MARKEY, JOSH BUCHANAN,
CHRISTINA C. CREGAR, CHRISTINA A.
KING, DR. ABBEY CASSIDY, PATRICIA
SNYDER and BLAKE JACKMAN,
AND NOW, this
day of November, 2017, upon review of all
pending motions in this matter, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Docket
Nos. 28, 30 and 37) are DENIED 1;
2. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Markey and Cassidy
(Docket No. 22) is GRANTED without prejudice, and Plaintiff shall be permitted to file
one final amendment to his complaint as to Defendants Cassidy and Markey if he can do
so in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
3. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Buchanan, Cregar, Jackman and
King (Docket No. 35) is GRANTED with prejudice and these defendants shall be
removed from this action. Plaintiff is directed that any amended complaint he files shall
not include Defendants Buchanan, Cregar, Jackman and King;
Docket No. 28 attempts to add the Honorable Wallace Bateman, Jr, the judge who entered the order
transferring Plaintiff to Norristown State Hospital, as a defendant. However, Judge Hartman is entitled to
judicial immunity and will not be added to this suit. Docket No. 37 is denied as duplicative of Docket No.
30 and is therefore denied. Docket No. 30 seeks to add exhibits to the Amended Complaint and is denied
because pursuant to an order dated April 27, 2017, Plaintiff was directed that this Court would allow no
further amendment to his Amended Complaint.
4. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Snyder is GRANTED without
prejudice, and Plaintiff will be permitted to file one final amendment to his complaint as
to Defendant Snyder if he can do so in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil
5. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claims based on alleged HIPAA
violations are dismissed with prejudice; and
6. Plaintiff’s Motion for Service (Docket No. 23) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J.
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?