Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Bodle v. Kriner
United States District Court, Third Circuit
October 9, 2013
LEON D. BODLE, Plaintiff,
CHRISTOPHER KRINER, et al., Defendants.
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before this Court for a statutorily-mandated screening of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 13). The plaintiff, Leon Bodle, filed his initial Complaint on December 4, 2012 (Doc. 1). On June 10, 2013, this Court entered an Order (Doc. 15) dismissing Bodle's claims without prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days. Bodle had already filed his Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) on April 25, 2013, following the issuance of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) recommending dismissal of his claims without prejudice.
In dismissing Plaintiff's initial Complaint, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint to correct the defects outlined by this Court. ( See Report and Recommendation of April 8, 2013 (Doc. 11), adopted by Order of June 10, 2013 (Doc. 15)). Specifically, this Court found as follows:
1. Bodle's claims that the defendants withheld exculpatory evidence and that Defendants Kriner and Samar tampered with the recording of his confession were not cognizable unless or until Bodle's conviction has been set aside, pursuant to the favorable-termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Doc. 11 at pp. 12-15).
2. Bodle's claim that Defendants Kriner and Samar destroyed or failed to preserve exculpatory evidence was also barred by the favorable-termination rule. (Doc. 11 at p. 15).
3. Bodle's claims against the municipal and supervisory defendants for failing to supervise the other defendants and for failing to have policies in place regarding the collection and storage of evidence were also barred by the favorable-termination rule. (Doc. 11 at p. 16).
4. Bodle's Complaint failed to state a claim of False Confession against Kriner and Samar. (Doc. 11 at p. 18).
5. Bodle's Complaint adequately stated a Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim against Defendants Kriner and Samar, but failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim against the municipal defendants. (Doc. 11 at p. 20).
6. Bodle's claims against the District Attorney Defendants were barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity. (Doc. 11 at p. 23).
7. Bodle's Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against Defendant Osokow based on his presence in the jury lounge. (Doc. 11 at p. 24).
8. Bodle's Complaint failed to state an access-to-the-courts claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. 11 at pp. 25-27).
9. Bodle's claims against the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and the Pennsylvania Sexual Offender Assessment Board were barred by the ...
Buy This Entire Record For