Former Arnold man's suit against bar dismissed
A former Arnold man won't get to sue the bar where he was shot.
A federal judge threw out a lawsuit filed this month by Thomas R. Galloway, 42, who lists addresses in the 1300 block of Victoria Avenue and in McKeesport.
In the lawsuit, Galloway asked for $20,000 plus legal fees for "hospital expenses, mental anxiety, inconvenience, pain and suffering."
Galloway, who is in jail awaiting sentencing for illegal gun possession, claimed in the suit that Envy bar owner Jonathan D. White was negligent for not searching Galloway and another man who got into a fight in the bar on Feb. 5. Both men were carrying guns when they entered the bar. Galloway's suit claimed he and the other man should have been searched when they entered the bar.
Galloway was convicted in Westmoreland County court on Dec. 6 for illegally having a pistol in the bar. He was not allowed to have a gun because he was convicted of assault with a gun in Lower Burrell in the mid-1990s.
Both Galloway and the man he fought with were shot during the altercation. Galloway spent five days in a Pittsburgh hospital, recovering from his wounds. The other man also survived.
Under the federal court ruling, Galloway could refile his suit in a Pennsylvania state court if he chooses. Galloway had filed the suit himself, without an attorney, and asked for pauper status because he couldn't afford the filing fees. The federal judge also rejected the pauper status request.
According to court records, Galloway has been in and out of prison since 1995. He was paroled in 2001 after serving more than four years but returned to prison on a parol violation in 2003 for another two and a half years. He later served terms in Westmoreland County for crimes including aggravated assault and drug possession.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.