IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
August 28, 2009
JAMIE EDWARD HOUSEKNECHT
JOHN DOE, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary A. McLAUGHLIN, J.
AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 2009, upon consideration of the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 43), and the plaintiffs' opposition thereto, and for the reasons stated in a memorandum of law bearing today's date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice, as follows:
1. The defendants' motion is GRANTED with respect to the plaintiffs' claim under the First Amendment for violation of his religious rights. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the defendants on that claim.
2. The defendants' motion is DENIED without prejudice with respect to the plaintiffs' retaliation claim.
3. Within thirty days of this Order, the defendants shall provide to the plaintiff all notes, journal entries, or communications regarding the plaintiff's involvement with the sexual offenders therapy group. The plaintiff may also, within thirty days of this Order, send additional interrogatories to the defendants asking them to explain the specific episodes or behaviors that they relied on in making their decision to remove him from the group. The defendants shall then have twenty days to respond to those interrogatories. Upon receipt of the defendants' response to his interrogatories, the plaintiff shall then have thirty days to send to the Court a supplemental brief explaining whether, on the basis of the evidence presented to him by the defendants, he believes any issues of material fact remain with respect to whether he can establish the causation element of his retaliation claim. The plaintiff shall include in his filing copies of the evidence on which he relies. The defendants shall then have two weeks to respond to the plaintiff's brief.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.