Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

KRASKA v. CLARK, 14-cv-2120. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20150817846 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOHN E. JONES, III , District Judge . In accordance with the Memorandum issued on today's date, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, (Docs. 20, 21, 37), are GRANTED. a. Defendant Judge Lawrence F. Clark, Jr.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (Doc. 21), is GRANTED to the extent Judge Clark is protected from this suit by judicial immunity. The claims against him are DISMISSED with prejudice. b. The Clerk of Court is DI
More

ORDER

In accordance with the Memorandum issued on today's date, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, (Docs. 20, 21, 37), are GRANTED. a. Defendant Judge Lawrence F. Clark, Jr.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (Doc. 21), is GRANTED to the extent Judge Clark is protected from this suit by judicial immunity. The claims against him are DISMISSED with prejudice. b. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant Clark as a party to this action. c. The claims against all other Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend his pleading within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order to the extent there are facts which, if true, support the Plaintiff's claims against the Sheriff Defendants, the Sheriff's Office, and Dauphin County. If the Plaintiff does not file an amended pleading in that time, the above dismissal of those claims will be deemed prejudicial.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer