Cluster 2313989
green
· 41 citation events
across 6 courts.
Showing the 37 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
Daniel Wayne Roland v. Wayne County Prison, et al. (2026)
Moreover, Roland does not allege an unconstitutional policy or custom by this entity such that a Section 1983 suit could 21 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 22 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989) (explaining that a state is not a “person” for Section 1983 purposes); Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973) (holding that “N…
finding that PrimeCare Medical is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Aaron J. Bressi v. SCI-Rockview, et al. (2026)
Yet any claim against a state agency or subunit is akin to suing the 27 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 28 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989) (explaining that a state is not a “person” for Section 1983 purposes); Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973) (holding that “New Jersey Prison Medical Department” was a state age…
finding that PrimeCare Medical is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Abraham Sigurd Lee v. SCI Camp Hill, et al. (2026)
Claim(s) Against SCI Camp Hill To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a plaintiff must allege “the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”29 Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as state agencies, prisons, medical departments, or private medical companies generally do not qualify as “persons” for…
finding that PrimeCare Medical is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Waheed Jenkins v. Department of Corrections, et al. (2026)
Claim(s) Against the DOC To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a plaintiff must allege “the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”32 Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as state agencies, prisons, medical departments, or private medical companies generally do not qualify as “persons” for purpo…
finding that PrimeCare Medical is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Daniel Wayne Roland v. Wayne County Prison, et al. (2025)
Moreover, Roland does not allege an unconstitutional policy or custom by either entity such that a Section 1983 suit could be maintained against it through its connection with the municipal government.27 Thus, both Wayne County Prison and Wayne County Prison Board will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 25 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 26 See Will v. Mich. …
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Joseph Pietrak v. Tina Litz, et al. (2025)
Moreover, Pietrak does not allege an unconstitutional policy or custom by Prime Care such that a Section 1983 suit could be maintained against it through its connection with the county government.41 Accordingly, if Pietrak intends to sue Prime Care Medical under Section 1983 in his amended complaint, those claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 39 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) …
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Pietrak v. Litz (2025)
Moreover, Pietrak does not allege an unconstitutional policy or 32 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 33 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that district court properly “dismissed Clarion County Jail as a defendant in this cas…
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Colon-Santiago v. Prime Care, Inc. (2025)
For a custom to be the proximate plaintiff sued Primecare, and pointing out that Primecare “was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it is not a ‘person’ under Section 1983”); Stankowski v. Farley, 487 F. Supp. 2d 543, 554 (M.D.
Munley, J.
green
DeJesus v. Shoemaker (2025)
Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, agencies, and private businesses do not qualify as “persons.” See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989): Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that district court properly “dismissed Clarion County Jail as a defendant in this case, quoting district court’s reasoning that “it is well establishe…
finding that PrimeCare Medical is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, agencies, and private businesses do not qualify as “persons.” See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989): Slagle v. Cnty. of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that the district court properly “dismissed Clarion County Jail as a defendant in this case,” quoting the district court’s reasoning that “‘it is well e…
finding that PrimeCare Medical is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Gibbs v. Prime Care Medical (2025)
Pa. Jan. 4, 2023) (Rambo, J.) (noting that pro se plaintiff sued PrimeCare, and pointing out that PrimeCare “was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it is not a ‘person’ under Section 1983”); Stankowski v. Farley, 487 F. Supp. 2d 543, 554 (M.D.
Munley, J.
green
Cicchiello v. Dauphin County Prison Board (2025)
Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, agencies, and private businesses do not qualify as “persons.” See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that district court properly “dismissed Clarion County Jail as a defendant in this case,” quoting district court’s reasoning that “‘it is well establis…
finding that PrimeCare Medical is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Rodriguez, Jr. v. United States (2024)
Sept. 16, 2015) (collecting cases); Stankowski v. Farley, 487 F. Supp. 2d 543, 552 (M.D.Pa. 2007). his claims.
green
Kohr v. Rivello (2024)
“Person” for Section 1983 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a plaintiff must allege “the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”36 Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, medical departments, or private medical companies generally do not qualify as “persons” for purposes of Section …
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Ealy v. Briggs (2024)
Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, agencies, and private businesses do not qualify as “persons.” See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. Cnty. of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that district court properly “dismissed Clarion County Jail as a defendant in this case,” □ quoting district court’s reasoning that “‘it is well establi…
finding that PrimeCare Medical is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Kenyon v. Gutierrez (2024)
Moreover, Kenyon does not plausibly allege an unconstitutional policy or custom by Wellpath such that a Section 1983 suit could be maintained against it through its connection with the government.95 He asserts only that certain employees of Wellpath (in particular, Dr. Gutierrez and Dr. Shaikh) treated him with Toradol injections, Tylenol, or Tylenol with codeine for his abdominal pain 93 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman,…
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Kendall v. SCI-Muncy Medical Department (2024)
The Court will therefore explain why her allegations do not state a Section 1983 claim but instead sound in state tort law. 20 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 21 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that district court proper…
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Abdullah v. Briggs (2024)
Moreover, Abdullah does not plausibly allege an unconstitutional policy or custom by PrimeCare such that a Section 1983 suit could be maintained against it through its connection with the county.33 31 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 32 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. …
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Abdullah v. Briggs (2024)
Moreover, Abdullah does not plausibly allege an unconstitutional policy or custom by PrimeCare such that a Section 1983 suit could be maintained against it through its connection with the county.33 31 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 32 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. …
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Herron v. Harris (2024)
Moreover, Herron does not allege an unconstitutional policy or custom by Wellpath such that a Section 1983 suit could be maintained against it through its connection with the government.25 He merely asserts, in a single 23 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 24 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 2…
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Donahue v. Wellpath Corporation (2024)
Eighth Amendment Medical Indifference In the context of prison medical care, the Eighth Amendment “requires prison officials to provide basic medical treatment to those whom it has incarcerated.”28 To 25 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that district court properly “dismissed Clarion County Jail as a defendant in this case,” quot…
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Perry v. Briggs (2024)
Leave to Amend Generally, “plaintiffs who file complaints subject to dismissal under [the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995] should receive leave to amend unless amendment would be inequitable or futile.”39 Perry will be granted one final opportunity to amend his pleadings in the event that he can plead facts that would 37 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming o…
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Ealy v. Briggs (2024)
Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, agencies, and private businesses do not qualify as “persons.” See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. Cnty. of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that the district court properly “dismissed Clarion County Jail as a defendant in this case,” quoting the district court’s reasoning that “it is well es…
finding that PrimeCare Medical is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Perry v. Briggs (2024)
Moreover, Perry does not allege an unconstitutional policy or custom by PrimeCare 29 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 30 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that district court properly “dismissed Clarion County Jail as a def…
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Boggs v. PrimeCare Medical Inc. (2023)
However, it does not appear that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has established or adhered to a different standard with respect to Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee medical indifference claims versus those raised by incarcerated 27 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 28 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989);…
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Ewell v. Betti (2022)
However, it does not appear that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has established 28 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 29 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that district court properly “dismissed Clar…
finding that PrimeCare, Inc. is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Boggs v. PrimeCare Medical Inc. (2022)
However, it does not appear that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has established 27 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 28 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that district court properly “dismissed Clar…
finding that PrimeCare is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
SCHELL v. PRIME CARE MEDICAL, SCP (2022)
Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as private businesses do not qualify as “persons.” See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds and observing that district court properly “dismissed Clarion County Jail as a defendant in this case,” quoting district court’s reasoning that “‘it is well established in the Third Circui…
finding that Prime Care Medical is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
Brown v. Cruz (2022)
Leave to Amend Generally, “plaintiffs who file complaints subject to dismissal under [the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995] should receive leave to amend unless 37 Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )). 38 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65, 71 (1989); Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 , 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming on other grounds…
finding that Prime Care Medical is not a “person for purposes of Section 1983” and thus not subject to liability under that statute
green
LEMMONS v. THE COUNTY OF ERIE (2020)
Pa. May 1, 2009) (“The doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity precludes conspiracy-based claims as well.”) (collecting cases); Stankowski v. Farley, 487 F. Supp. 2d 543, 552 (M.D.
prosecutorial immunity “doctrine similarly protects ADA Tonkin from suit by the plaintiff for conspiracy under Section 1985(3)”
green
McCoy v. Favata (2020)
McCoy v. Favata, 2019 WL 1429570 , at *5-6 (citing Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 274 (1993); Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 126 (1997); Stankowski v. Farley, 487 F. Supp. 2d 543, 552 (M.D.
finding negotiation of plea bargains conduct “intimately associated with . . . judicial phase of . . . criminal process”
green
WEBER v. ERIE COUNTY (2019)
Farley, 487 F. Supp. 2d 543, 552 (M.D.
prosecutorial immunity “doctrine similarly protects ADA Tonkin from suit by the plaintiff for conspiracy under Section 1985(3)”
green
Clark v. Conahan (2010)
In determining whether to grant such immunity, courts must take a functional approach, focusing on “the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it and evaluate the effect that exposure to particular forms of liability would likely have on the appropriate exercise of that function.” Stankowski v. Farley, 487 F.Supp.2d 543, 552 (M.D.Pa.2007) (quoting Light v. Haws, 472 F.3d 74, 78 (3d Cir.2007)), aff'd, 251 Fed.Appx. 743 (3d Cir.2007).
green
IANUALE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY (2025)
See Stankowski v. Farley, 487 F. Supp. 2d 543, 553 (M.D.
“[P]resentence reports are thus ‘integral parts of the judicial process’ and those who prepare them are ‘immune from suits under Section 1983.’” (quoting McArdle v. Tronetti, 961 F.2d 1083, 1084 (3d Cir. 1992))
green
Voglino v. Shapiro (2021)
See Stankowski v. Farley, 487 F.Supp.2d 543 (M.D.
green
Allah v. Poole (2007)
See Stankowski 487 F.Supp.2d at 575 n. 28 (“Plaintiff apparently contends that the Eighth Amendment was violated because the segregation unit had cold air ducts constantly blowing and had a leaking sink.
green
Sital v. Burgio (2009)
See also Stankowski v. Farley, 487 F.Supp.2d 543 , 575 n. 28 (M.D.Pa.2007) (inmate’s allegation that area in which he was held had cold-air ducts that were constantly blowing, and had a leaking sink, did not state an Eighth Amendment claim); Zimmerman v. Seyfert, No. 9:03-CV-1389, 2007 WL 2080517 , at *29 (N.D.N.Y.