Ross v. Fiss

M.D. Pennsylvania

Ross v. Fiss

DecidedMarch 31, 2023

Docket1:21-cv-02080

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Ross v. Fiss, (M.D. Pa. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

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

TARAHJAY M. ROSS, : Plaintiff : : No. 1:21-cv-02080 v. : : (Judge Kane) LT. FISS, et al., : Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, on this 31st day of March 2023, upon consideration of Defendants Thomas, Donatto, and Fiss (“Defendants”)’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 14), and in accordance with the Court’s accompanying Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Thomas, and that claim is DISMISSED from the complaint; and

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

c. Plaintiff is permitted to proceed on his Fourteenth Amendment excessive use of force claims against Defendants Thomas and Fiss, and on his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Donatto;

2. Defendants may file a motion for summary judgment on the limited issue of administrative exhaustion, brief in support thereof, statement of material facts, and corresponding exhibits within thirty (30) days. If Defendants file such a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff may file a response in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. Additionally, if Defendants file such a motion for summary judgment, the parties are placed on notice that the Court will consider the issue of exhaustion in its role as a fact-finder. See Paladino v. Newsome, 885 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2018); Small v. Camden Cty., 728 F.3d 265, 271 (3d Cir. 2013); and 3. If Defendants elect to forego, at this time in the case, the filing of a motion for summary judgment on the limited issue of exhaustion, then Defendants shall file any answer to the complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.

s/ Yvette Kane Yvette Kane, District Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

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

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

TARAHJAY M. ROSS, : Plaintiff : : No. 1:21-cv-02080 v. : : (Judge Kane) LT. FISS, et al., : Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, on this 31st day of March 2023, upon consideration of Defendants Thomas, Donatto, and Fiss (“Defendants”)’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 14), and in accordance with the Court’s accompanying Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Thomas, and that claim is DISMISSED from the complaint; and

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

c. Plaintiff is permitted to proceed on his Fourteenth Amendment excessive use of force claims against Defendants Thomas and Fiss, and on his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Donatto;

2. Defendants may file a motion for summary judgment on the limited issue of administrative exhaustion, brief in support thereof, statement of material facts, and corresponding exhibits within thirty (30) days. If Defendants file such a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff may file a response in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. Additionally, if Defendants file such a motion for summary judgment, the parties are placed on notice that the Court will consider the issue of exhaustion in its role as a fact-finder. See Paladino v. Newsome, 885 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2018); Small v. Camden Cty., 728 F.3d 265, 271 (3d Cir. 2013); and 3. If Defendants elect to forego, at this time in the case, the filing of a motion for summary judgment on the limited issue of exhaustion, then Defendants shall file any answer to the complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.

s/ Yvette Kane Yvette Kane, District Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ross v. Fiss, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-fiss-pamd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack