Judge v. Shikellamy School District et al

Filing 16

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry); granting in party and denying in part dfts' motion to dismiss [#7] (see order for further/complete details). Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 9/28/15. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOLLY JUDGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHIKELLAMY SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
PATRICK M. KELLEY,
DR. JAMES P. HARTMAN,
WENDY WIEST,
LORI GARMAN,
KELLIE CIANFLONE,
JAMES GARMAN,
C. SCOTT KARPINSKI,
THOMAS MICHAELS,
MICHAEL STEPP, and
DR. JEFFREY WALTER,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-0551

(Judge Brann)

ORDER
September 28, 2015
AND NOW, in accordance with the memorandum of this same date, it is
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
2. With respect to Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim in Count I, to the
extent it is predicated on her property interest in her job as codified by 24
1

P.S. § 11-1122 or upon her liberty interest in her reputation, Defendants’
motion to dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice, with leave to amend in
accordance with this Court’s decision.
3. However, to the extent Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim in Count I is
predicated on her property interest in her job as codified by 24 P.S. § 5-514,
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.
4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice with respect to
Plaintiff’s substantive due process and equal protection claims in Counts II
and III.
5. Moreover, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to
Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim without prejudice with leave to amend in
accordance with this Court’s decision.
6. Furthermore, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED with regard to Plaintiff’s
claims for punitive damages, to the extent they are asserted against the
School District and the individual Defendants in their official capacities.
7. With regard to the individual defenses, Defendants’ request that the claims
against the individual Defendants in their official capacities be dismissed on
the basis of redundancy is GRANTED.
8. However, their request for high public official immunity is DENIED.

2

9. Finally, the individual Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity is
GRANTED and those Defendants are accordingly dismissed from the instant
action.
BY THE COURT:

/s Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

3