IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
February 4, 2010
KENNETH MALIK MILLER
DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Baylson, J.
Presently before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's November 10, 2010 ruling, filed by Defendants William Radle and Thomas Dohman on December 7, 2010 (ECF No. 106). Defendants request the Court (1) conclude the facts are undisputed that Plaintiff's ring was contraband and that Plaintiff cannot have any property rights to contraband held while in prison, and (2) hold that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as applied to Plaintiff's due process claim. Plaintiff responded to the motion on December 14, 2010 (ECF No. 106). In light of Defendants' Motion, the Court has decided to take a fresh look at the record on the issue of contraband and to revisit the issue of qualified immunity. For the reasons which follow, Plaintiff's Motion will bedenied.
I. Summary Background and Procedural History*fn1
A. Plaintiff's Possession of His Wedding Ring
Plaintiff has been incarcerated since 1987. Pl.'s Dep. at 10:2-14. He was initially held at