Legal Opinion
Harris v. Steadman
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 11, 2016No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-993PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rufe, Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a third pro se Motion to Amend the Complaint, which Defendant opposes. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
*816I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT
On October 4, 1997, Plaintiff was convicted of murder in the first degree in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and a sentence of death was imposed. On March 22, 2004, Plaintiff filed a habeas corpus action in this Court,1 and on March 30, 2004, this Court appointed the Defender Association of Philadelphia as counsel in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Heck v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Burns v. ReedSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- BROOKINS v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIADistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2024
- Clearly Clean Products, LLC, et al. v. Tekni-Plex, Inc., et al.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2026
- DEARDORFF v. CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2022
- GANT v. MARLERDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2020
- James C. Mooney v. Ainsworth, Inc. et al.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2026
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.