Opinion
1:20-cv-0148 (Erie)
09-27-2021
MANUEL BAEZ, Plaintiff v. C/O FROELICH, C/O ROSENBERG, SGT. WATTSON, LT. DUBE, LT. BEDNORO, MS. LUCAS, PATRICIA THOMPSON, EARL JONES, BRYAN E. FLINCHBAUGH, M. CLARK, DORINA VARNER, Defendants
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ECF NO. 74
HON. RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Manuel Baez (“Baez”) has filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in which he purports to provide the Court with “undisputable evidence of my claims, with caselaw.” ECF No. 74, p. 1. Baez provides the Court with citations to and summaries of numerous decisions from around the country and attaches certain mental health records and portions of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' Access to Health Care Procedures Manual. See ECF No. 74-1, generally.
In effect, Baez' motion reargues the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Froehlich relating to providing Baez with razors and encouraging him to commit suicide. See ECF No. 8, ¶ 8. The Court has already denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss this claim and the matter will now proceed to discovery. See ECF No. 78, p. 9.
Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) stipulates that a motion for judgment as a matter of law is only appropriate “if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). In as much as the Defendants have yet to file a responsive pleading and the Court is awaiting a decision from Baez on whether he will file an Amended Complaint in light of the Court's recent order granting, in part, and denying, in part, the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the instant motion is premature.
Therefore, Baez' motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.