MCMANUS v. COUNTY OF LEHIGH

E.D. Pennsylvania

MCMANUS v. COUNTY OF LEHIGH

DecidedMarch 30, 2024

Docket5:23-cv-00464

StatusUnknown

This text of MCMANUS v. COUNTY OF LEHIGH (MCMANUS v. COUNTY OF LEHIGH) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MCMANUS v. COUNTY OF LEHIGH, (E.D. Pa. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

JOHN MCMANUS, : Plaintiff, : : v. : C IVIL NO. 23-464 : COUNTY OF LEHIGH, JACOB E : HAMMOND, CHAD L BURRY, JAY : JENKINS, KAREN SCHULAR and : ROBERT L. STEINBERG, : Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant Chad Burry’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4), and the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Filed on Behalf of Judicial Defendants (ECF No. 8), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Defendants’ motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. They aregranted to the extent that the Plaintiff failed to adhere to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12( b)(6), and his complaint is being dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend. The Defendants’ motions are denied in that the Court has afforded the Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. 2. The Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). 3. To the extent the complaint is asserting a “quo warranto” claim, the Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6). 4. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint no later than May 3, 2024. Any amended complaint may not assert a quo warranto claim or seek relief in the form of the issuance of a writ of quo warranto. If the Plaintiff does not wish to amend his Complaint and instead intends to stand on his s5u.bmission as originally filed, he may file a notice with the Court by May 3, 2024, tating that intent, at which time the Court will issue a final order dismissing the case. See Wesber v.

McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2019). Any such otice should be titled “Notice to Stand on Complaint,” and shall include the civil action number nfor this case 6. If the Plaintiff fails to file any response to this Orde r, the Court will conclude that he intends to stand on his Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Kai N. Scott HON. KAI N. SCOTT United States District Court Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

JOHN MCMANUS, : Plaintiff, : : v. : C IVIL NO. 23-464 : COUNTY OF LEHIGH, JACOB E : HAMMOND, CHAD L BURRY, JAY : JENKINS, KAREN SCHULAR and : ROBERT L. STEINBERG, : Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant Chad Burry’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4), and the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Filed on Behalf of Judicial Defendants (ECF No. 8), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Defendants’ motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. They aregranted to the extent that the Plaintiff failed to adhere to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12( b)(6), and his complaint is being dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend. The Defendants’ motions are denied in that the Court has afforded the Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. 2. The Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). 3. To the extent the complaint is asserting a “quo warranto” claim, the Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6). 4. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint no later than May 3, 2024. Any amended complaint may not assert a quo warranto claim or seek relief in the form of the issuance of a writ of quo warranto. If the Plaintiff does not wish to amend his Complaint and instead intends to stand on his s5u.bmission as originally filed, he may file a notice with the Court by May 3, 2024, tating that intent, at which time the Court will issue a final order dismissing the case. See Wesber v.

McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2019). Any such otice should be titled “Notice to Stand on Complaint,” and shall include the civil action number nfor this case 6. If the Plaintiff fails to file any response to this Orde r, the Court will conclude that he intends to stand on his Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Kai N. Scott HON. KAI N. SCOTT United States District Court Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

MCMANUS v. COUNTY OF LEHIGH, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmanus-v-county-of-lehigh-paed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack