FULLMAN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 99

ORDER THAT BOTH MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 49 & 50) ARE GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDER THAT AFTER CONSIDERING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO JOIN PARTIES (ECF NO. 86) AND MOTION TO ADD AMENDED DISCOVERY (ECF NO. 87), AND ANY RESPONSES THERETO, PLAINT IFFS MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 86 & 87) ARE DENIED. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF NO. 88) IS DENIED AS MOOT. THE MATTER IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1 THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 5/5/23. 5/5/23 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANDREW FULLMAN,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., :
:
Defendants
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 17-2673

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of May, 2023, upon consideration of
Defendant Bonner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 49) and
Defendants the City of Philadelphia and Ross’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50), and considering any responses
thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that both motions for summary
judgment (ECF Nos. 49 & 50) are GRANTED. It is further ORDERED
that after considering Plaintiff’s Motion to Join Parties (ECF
No. 86) and Motion to Add Amended Discovery (ECF No. 87), and
any responses thereto, Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 86 & 87)
are DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 88)
is DENIED as moot. The matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 1 The
Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

Plaintiff has recently filed an amended complaint. See Am. Compl., ECF No.
96. The Court will not strike the Amended Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(f). First, Plaintiff did not seek and was not granted leave of Court
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Second, the claims alleged
in the Amended Complaint do not relate to the instant case and name different
defendants. The Court notes that the claims in the Amended Complaint were
brought in Plaintiff’s original Complaint and dismissed by the Court without
prejudice, with instructions to file a new civil action in the event his 1986
conviction was invalidated. See July 31, 2017 Order, ECF No. 3. To the extent
1

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

that Plaintiff has a claim, he can bring another lawsuit, as originally
instructed.