Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rummel v. Lewisburg Police

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

December 23, 2014

DANIEL F. RUMMEL, Plaintiff
v.
LEWISBURG POLICE, et al., Defendants.

THOMAS M. BLEWITT, Magistrate Judge.

On February 14, 2014, Plaintiff Daniel F. Rummel, an inmate confined at SCI-Albion located in Albion, Pennsylvania, filed, pro se, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on that same date. (Doc. 2).

Plaintiff named the following Defendants in his three-paragraph form original Complaint: (1) Lewisburg Police; (2) Sgt. Hefrick; (3) Corp. M. Herman; (4) Ptl. Jones; and (5) Six (6) John Doe Defendants. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Plaintiff indicated that SCI-Albion's grievance procedure was not applicable to his claims because the claims did not involve conditions of confinement at SCI-Albion. ( Id., p. 2).

This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343(a).

On March 11, 2014, we screened Plaintiff's original Complaint as required by the PLRA and issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) with respect to Plaintiff's claims. On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Objections (Doc. 9) to our Report and Recommendation.

On April 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 14) and a Memorandum of Law in Support of his Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 15) which was denied by the Court on July 3, 2014. (Docs. 21 & 22).

On April 21, 2014, before the Court ruled on our Report and Recommendation screening Plaintiff's original Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint (Doc. 16) and a Proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. 17).

On June 27, 2014, the Court issued an Order and adopted our Report and Recommendation screening Plaintiff's original Complaint, stated the following: (1) United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in full; (2) The action may proceed as to Defendant Jones on Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment Excessive Force claim; (3) The Lewisburg Borough Police Department is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with leave to file an amended complaint to properly raise a Monell claim; (4) Plaintiff's malicious prosecution and false imprisonment claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with leave to re-file after the state proceedings have been terminated; (5) Plaintiff's demand for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacity is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (6) The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for further proceedings, including disposition of ECF Nos. 2, 14, and 16. (Doc. 20, p. 2).

On July 23, 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint was granted in part, and denied in part. (Doc. 24). On July 23, 2014, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and service was directed to issue process to the United States to serve Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Doc. 26).

On November 10, 2014, Defendants Hefrick, Jones and the Lewisburg Police Department filed a Motion for More Definite Statement and to Dismiss. (Doc. 40). On November 10, 2014, Defendant Herman filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 42). Both motions to dismiss are currently pending before the Court. On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second Motion to Appoint Counsel and a Motion to Compel Discovery. (Docs. 45 & 46). We will now address Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 45). We will further address Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. (Doc. 46).

II. DISCUSSION.

As stated, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Appoint Counsel and a Memorandum in Support on December 15, 2014. In his Doc. 45 Motion to Appoint Counsel, Plaintiff states the following reasons as to why the Court should appoint him counsel:

1. Both the District Attorney of Union County and the Police Chief were properly notified by mail of the wrong doings of the many police officers involved. Therefore a time limit was met. The fact that the trial process covered an approximate time of September 2011 to August 2013 hindered my ability to bring the matter to a higher court. It's unfortunate the lower court and officials hindered my accounts and attorney's purposely avoided the issues for whatever reasons.
2. Due to the nature of the Law Firms, Lavery Faherty and Margolis Edlestein and their attemps to dismiss, an attorney for myself is more than necessary to address the very serious concerns I bring to the Honorable Court, and that America is currently facing thruout the entire country, some of which resulted in ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.