ROBINSON v. BEARD et al

Filing 79

ORDER THAT THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDANTS' MOTION RELATING TO DEFENDANTS JEFFREY A. BEARD, DAVID DIGUGLIELMO AND MYRON STANISHEFSKI IS GRANTED AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THESE DEFENDANTS ARE HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THE COMONWEALTH DEFENDANTS M OTION RELATING TO ANY EIGHTH AMENDNENT DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS CLAIMS IS DENIED AS MOOT. THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE SEC. 1983 EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS TOMS, BERETSKY AND WILCOX IN TH IER OFFICIAL CAPACITIES IS GRANTED AND THESE CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE SEC. 1983 EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS TOMS, BERETSKY AND WILCOX IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES IS DE NIED. THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDANTS TOMS, BERETSKY AND WILCOX MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS TOMS, BERETSKY AND WILCOX WILL FILE AN ANSWER TO TH REMAINING CLAIMS AGAINST THEM WITHIN TWENTY(20) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 11/13/13. 11/14/13 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED(jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HARVEY MIGUEL ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 08-3156

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 2013, upon consideration of the Motion by
Defendants Jeffrey A. Beard, David DiGuglielmo, Myron Stanishefski, Francis Beretsky,
William Wilcox, and Bryan Toms (collectively, the “Commonwealth Defendants”) to Partially
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Docket No. 74) and Plaintiff Harvey Miguel
Robinson’s Response (Docket No. 77), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion relating to Defendants Jeffrey A. Beard,
David DiGuglielmo, and Myron Stanishefski is GRANTED and all claims
against these Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2.

The Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion relating to any Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference and substantive due process claims is DENIED AS
MOOT based on Plaintiff’s explicit representation that he is not bringing any
such claims.

3.

The Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the § 1983 excessive force
claims against Defendants Toms, Beretsky, and Wilcox in their official capacities
is GRANTED and these claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

4.

The Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the § 1983 excessive force
claims against Defendants Toms, Beretsky, and Wilcox in their individual

capacities1 is DENIED.
5.

The Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims
against Defendants Toms, Beretsky, and Wilcox is DENIED.

6.

Defendants Toms, Beretsky, and Wilcox will file an Answer to the remaining
claims against them within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.

1

As noted in the accompanying Memorandum, it is not entirely clear that Defendants are
moving to dismiss the individual capacity § 1983 claims. Nonetheless, for purposes of clarity,
the Court makes an explicit ruling as to these claims.