Susan Rose Paradise Baxter

“Based upon the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment in favor of Shell Energy Holding GP LLC.”

“IT IS ORDERED that the DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 85) and Defendant Zupsic's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 87) are GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commonwealth Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 76] is DENIED, without prejudice, as moot.”

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to remand [ECF No. 6] is granted.”

Prisoner Section 1983 case dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute after a Poulis six-factor analysis. The released pro se plaintiff repeatedly failed to respond to two pending defense summary-judgment motions despite multiple show-cause orders. Baxter did not reach those motions on the merits, and the order does not state prejudice. The order states: 'the Court will dismiss this case, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), based upon Plaintiff's failure to prosecute his claims.' The ruling shows that Baxter will dismiss a dormant pro se case when lesser sanctions would be futile.

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Medical Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 67] is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's First Amendment access to courts against such Defendants, and such claim is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice; however, the Medical Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED in all other respects.”

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 72] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows: 1. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Wisniewski and Clark, and such claim is DISMISSED, without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to amend such claim to correct the deficiencies noted in the R&R within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. ... 2. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's First Amendment access to courts claim against Defendant Smock and Plaintiff's ADA/Rehab Act claims against Defendants Clark, Smock, and Silva, in their official capacities, and such claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; and 3. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.”

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 26] is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference to medical needs claim (Count II) and Plaintiff's state law assault and battery claim (part of Count III), and such claims are DISMISSED, with prejudice; and the DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's failure to protect claim (Count I) is GRANTED, without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to amend his complaint to attempt to state a claim that Defendants failed to protect him from assault perpetrated by other prison officials, if he so desires and is able to do so.”

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Wellpath's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 34] is DENIED AS MOOT, in light of Plaintiff's withdrawal of all claims against said Defendant.”

“IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 42] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that final judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.”

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hunter's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 54] is denied.”

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Lorah and Bogart [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED and Plaintiff's remaining claim of malicious prosecution is dismissed, without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to commence a new action restating the same claim against the same Defendants in the event his criminal proceedings are finally resolved in his favor.”

The court screened this self-represented in forma pauperis complaint against a U.S. Senator and others without a pending dismissal motion. It found that the filings stated no claim against the named defendant and that judges named in later filings had absolute judicial immunity. Leave to amend was denied as futile given the plaintiff's history of similarly deficient filings and an existing vexatious-litigant order. Because this was a court-initiated screening decision rather than a party motion, it is not included in motion-outcome counts. The order states: 'Because the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional or statutory violation based on any of the factual statements in any of his filings in this case, leave to amend is futile.'

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 65] is GRANTED and judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all claims in this case.”

“IT IS ORDERED, this 22nd day of November, 2024, that the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss, ECF No. [25], is GRANTED, and the following claims shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED”