Briggs v. Potter County et al

Filing 14

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry): IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' 6 MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. (See Order for further/complete details.) Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 11/13/2017. (jn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RALPH BRIGGS, SR., No. 4:17-CV-00419 Plaintiff. (Judge Brann) v. POTTER COUNTY, GLENN DRAKE, II, SUSAN KEFOVER, PAUL HEIMEL, DOUGLAS MORLEY, ANGELA MILFORD, KENNETH SAULEY, Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 13th day of November 2017, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Potter County, Glenn Drake, II, Susan Kefover, Paul Heimel, Douglas Morley, Angela Milford, and Kenneth Sauley, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The motion is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims (Counts I and II) against Potter County, Susan Kefover, Paul Heimel, and Douglas Morley. b. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Sheriff Sauley. c. The motion is DENIED as to the issues of whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, whether Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and whether Plaintiff’s claims are preempted. 2. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend her complaint, as indicated in the accompanying Memorandum, no later than twenty one (21) days from the date of this Order. 3. Defendants are GRANTED leave to raise, in response to any amended complaint filed by Plaintiff, the issues of whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, whether Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and whether Plaintiff’s claims are preempted. BY THE COURT: s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge -2-

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?