Alford v. Baylor

• Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 9, 2022
• Docket: 1:20-cv-01787
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CRAIG ALFORD, No. 1:20-CV-01787

Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)

v.

LEA BAYLOR, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER AND NOW, this 9th day of August 2022, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ motion (Doc. 79) to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Alford’s individual capacity Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Warden. Said claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.

b. Defendants’ motion is DENIED in all other respects.

2. Alford’s official capacity Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against defendants Baylor, Armond, and Warden are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

3. No further leave to amend shall be granted as amendment would be futile and because Alford has failed to cure the deficiencies with previous amendments allowed. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). 4. This case shall proceed on the following claims: (1) Alford’s official capacity Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Haidle, and (2) Alford’s individual capacity Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against defendants Baylor, Armond, and Haidle.

BY THE COURT:

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