Judicial Insight
Back to feed
Panel onlyCivilCourt of Appeals

Gregory Hartmann v. Brian Chudzik

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided
Sep 24, 2026
Docket
25-2762
Judges
Not listed
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 2, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Panel: likely decided in favor of the Appellees (prison warden and county judges).

  2. This decision ·

    Panel only

TL;DR

  1. 1Prisoners filed a lawsuit against county judges and the prison warden, claiming rights violations.
  2. 2The granted a panel but denied a full court rehearing.
  3. 3The decision means no broader court reconsideration, but minor panel adjustments were allowed.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Should the court grant a ?

    Holding · The court denied the as no judge requested it and a majority did not vote for it.

  2. 2

    Should the panel be granted?

    Holding · The court granted the panel , allowing minor revisions without changing the appeal's outcome.

Why it matters

This decision affects prisoners seeking to challenge perceived judicial overreach in handling their cases within Lancaster County.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Can prisoners push their case against county judges for another hearing?

  1. 1A group of prisoners sued several county judges and the prison warden.
  2. 2They claim their rights were violated by the judges' decisions.
  3. 3The case was reheard by the original panel, but the broader, full court review was denied.

Should the grant a in the lawsuit against the judges and county?

Be the first juror

Parties

  • Appellant

    Gregory Hartmann

  • Appellee

    Brian Chudzik

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 25-2762 GREGORY HARTMANN; JOHN HAYS; DEWAYNE BAILEY; BRYANT ISHAQ; HOWARD CHAPMAN; CHRISTO BELONY; ROBERT EDWARDS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants v. HON. BRIAN E. CHUDZIK; HON. EDWIN TOBIN; HON. MILES BIXLER; HON. ANDREW LEFEVER, in their official capacities as Magisterial District Judges; LANCASTER COUNTY; WARDEN OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON (D.C. No. 5:22-cv-01588) SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING Present: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS, PORTER, MATEY, PHIPPS, FREEMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, CHUNG, BOVE, and RENDELL*, Circuit Judges The petition for panel rehearing filed by Appellants in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition for rehearing by the panel is GRANTED. The Clerk * Judge Rendell’s vote is limited to panel rehearing only. is directed to file the amended opinion contemporaneously with this order. As the revisions do not affect the disposition of the appeal, the judgment will remain as filed. The petition for rehearing en banc filed by Appellees in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. BY THE COURT, s/Patty Shwartz Circuit Judge Dated: September 24, 2026 ARR/cc: All Counsel of Record
View on CourtListener