Owens v. Murray et al

Filing 22

ORDER: In accordance w/the Memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry 21 , IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants' unopposed motion to dismiss (Doc. 13 ) is construed as seeking partial dismissal and is GRANTED IN PART.2. The monetary d amage claims brought against the individual Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED as being barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 3. Superintendent Murray is GRANTED entry of dismissal on the basis of lack of personal involvement. 4.Defen dant Hearing Examiner Reisinger's request for dismissal is GRANTED. 5. The request for dismissal of the claims of conspiracy and the retaliation claim against Unit Manager Carberry are GRANTED. 6. The motion for partial dismissal is DENIED in al l other respects. Plaintiffs remaining contentions of retaliation, as well as his unconstitutional conditions of confinement and excessive force claims will proceed. 7. A decision as to whether this Court should exercise jurisdiction over any state law tort claims against the Defendants will be held in abeyance pending resolution of all dispositive motions. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 2/21/14. (km)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEVEN OWENS,
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN MURRAY, ET AL.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 4:CV-13-680
(Judge Brann)

ORDER
February 21, 2014
In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1.

Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss (Doc. 13 ) is
construed as seeking partial dismissal and is GRANTED IN
PART.

2.

The monetary damage claims brought against the individual
Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED as
being barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

3.

Superintendent Murray is GRANTED entry of dismissal on
the basis of lack of personal involvement.
1

4.

Defendant Hearing Examiner Reisinger’s request for dismissal
is GRANTED.

5.

The request for dismissal of the claims of conspiracy and the
retaliation claim against Unit Manager Carberry are
GRANTED.

6.

The motion for partial dismissal is DENIED in all other
respects. Plaintiff’s remaining contentions of retaliation, as
well as his unconstitutional conditions of confinement and
excessive force claims will proceed.

7.

A decision as to whether this Court should exercise jurisdiction
over any state law tort claims against the Defendants will be
held in abeyance pending resolution of all dispositive motions.

BY THE COURT:
s/Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

2