NEWMONES v. RANSOM

W.D. Pennsylvania

NEWMONES v. RANSOM

DecidedJuly 11, 2022

Docket1:21-cv-00276

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

NEWMONES v. RANSOM, (W.D. Pa. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIE DIVISION

STEPHON ORLANDO NEWMONES, ) ) :21-CV-00276-RAL Plaintiff, 1:21-CV-00276

vs. RICHARD A. LANZILLO ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MS. RANSOM, PSYCH, INDIVIDUAL ) AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; C.O. SNIPPITT, SECURITY, INDIVIDUAL ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MR. ) ECF NO. 28 GOTTUSMAN, PSYCH, INDIVIDUAL ) AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; C.O. ) ECF NO. 35 TAYLOR, C.0. SANTOS, ) ) Defendants, ) )

Plaintiff Stephon Orlando Newmones’ (“Newmones’”) filed his fourth amended complaint on March 15, 2022. See ECF No. 15. Two motions to dismiss that pleading are currently pending in this case. On May 13, 2022, Defendants Ransom, Santos, Snippitt, and Taylor have a filed a motion to dismiss at ECF No. 28. Then, on June 10, 2022, Defendant Gottusman also filed a motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 35. Newmones was given until July 18, 2022, to file an amended complaint or a response to the motions to dismiss. See ECF No. 38. In response to the Court’s order, Newmones filed a document identified as an “amended complaint” on July 7, 2022. ECF No. 40. Newmones’ most recent filing consists of arguments concerning administrative exhaustion—an issue not raised in the motions to dismiss—and contends that he pleaded facts sufficient to withstand the Defendants’ motions. See, e.g., ECF No. 40, pp. 1-3. . After a thorough review, the Court construes Newmones’ “amended complaint” as his response

to the motions to dismiss. The title of a filing is not nearly as important as the substance of that filing and the Court may properly classify documents as amendments, supplements, or responses based on substance. See, e.g., Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 81 (3d Cir. 2019). Thus, the Amended Complaint docketed at ECF No. 15 remains the operative pleading. To the extent any additional facts are presented in that document, the Court will consider those averments as supplements to the Amended Complaint. The Defendants may file a Reply addressing any additional facts within fourteen (14) day of the date of this Order.

DATED this 11th day of July, 2022.

□

RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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 WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIE DIVISION

STEPHON ORLANDO NEWMONES, ) ) :21-CV-00276-RAL Plaintiff, 1:21-CV-00276

vs. RICHARD A. LANZILLO ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MS. RANSOM, PSYCH, INDIVIDUAL ) AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; C.O. SNIPPITT, SECURITY, INDIVIDUAL ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MR. ) ECF NO. 28 GOTTUSMAN, PSYCH, INDIVIDUAL ) AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; C.O. ) ECF NO. 35 TAYLOR, C.0. SANTOS, ) ) Defendants, ) )

Plaintiff Stephon Orlando Newmones’ (“Newmones’”) filed his fourth amended complaint on March 15, 2022. See ECF No. 15. Two motions to dismiss that pleading are currently pending in this case. On May 13, 2022, Defendants Ransom, Santos, Snippitt, and Taylor have a filed a motion to dismiss at ECF No. 28. Then, on June 10, 2022, Defendant Gottusman also filed a motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 35. Newmones was given until July 18, 2022, to file an amended complaint or a response to the motions to dismiss. See ECF No. 38. In response to the Court’s order, Newmones filed a document identified as an “amended complaint” on July 7, 2022. ECF No. 40. Newmones’ most recent filing consists of arguments concerning administrative exhaustion—an issue not raised in the motions to dismiss—and contends that he pleaded facts sufficient to withstand the Defendants’ motions. See, e.g., ECF No. 40, pp. 1-3. . After a thorough review, the Court construes Newmones’ “amended complaint” as his response

to the motions to dismiss. The title of a filing is not nearly as important as the substance of that filing and the Court may properly classify documents as amendments, supplements, or responses based on substance. See, e.g., Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 81 (3d Cir. 2019). Thus, the Amended Complaint docketed at ECF No. 15 remains the operative pleading. To the extent any additional facts are presented in that document, the Court will consider those averments as supplements to the Amended Complaint. The Defendants may file a Reply addressing any additional facts within fourteen (14) day of the date of this Order.

DATED this 11th day of July, 2022.

□

RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

NEWMONES v. RANSOM, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newmones-v-ransom-pawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack