Peter Vega v. Dr. Badick, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania addresses several motions in Peter Vega’s prisoner civil rights and medical malpractice case. The court grants in part and denies in part defendant Shah’s motion to dismiss, dismissing Vega’s state-law negligence and malpractice claims for failure to file a certificate of merit while allowing his federal civil rights claim to proceed. The court denies the other defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, denies Shah’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice, and deems several unsupported motions withdrawn.

Holdings

1. The motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied because the defendants did not comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.7's notice requirement before seeking dismissal.
2. Shah's motion to dismiss was granted as to Vega's state-law negligence and malpractice claims because Vega failed to file a separate certificate of merit as to Shah.
3. Shah's motion to dismiss was denied to the extent it sought dismissal of Vega's federal civil-rights claim because a certificate of merit is not required for a deliberate-indifference claim based on violation of federal constitutional rights.
4. Shah's motion for summary judgment was summarily denied without prejudice because it lacked the statement of material facts required by M.D. Pa. Local Rule 56.1.
5. Shah's motion to strike and Vega's motions for protection and injunctive relief were deemed withdrawn because the movants failed to file supporting briefs within the time required by the local rule.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the remaining defendants were entitled to judgment on the pleadings because Vega failed to file certificates of merit.
2. Whether Shah was entitled to dismissal of Vega's Pennsylvania negligence and malpractice claims for failure to file a certificate of merit specific to Shah.
3. Whether Shah was entitled to dismissal of Vega's federal deliberate-indifference claim for failure to file a certificate of merit.
4. Whether Shah's motion for summary judgment should be considered when he failed to file the statement of material facts required by M.D. Pa. Local Rule 56.1.
5. Whether unsupported pending motions should be deemed withdrawn under M.D. Pa. Local Rule 7.5.

Disposition

other