KEAHEY v. BETHEL TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE 42 USC SECTION 1983 CLAIMS (COUNTS I AND II) IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS ALLEGE DEPRIVATIO NS OF HIS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, BUT DENIED TO THE EXTENT THE CLAIMS ALLEGE DEPRIVATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BASED ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEIZURE OF ONE'S PERSON AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND DEPRIVATION OF FOURTE ENTH AMENDMENT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS; DEFNEDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CLAIM IS DENIED; DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE FALSE IMPRISONMENT CLAIM (COUNT IV) IS DENIED; DEFEN DANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE HARASSMENT CLAIM (COUNT V) IS GRANTED; DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS CLAIM IS GRANTED; DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS GRANTED A S TO ALL SECTION 1983 CLAIMS AGAINST BETHEL TOWNSHIP, BUT DENIED TO THE EXTENT THAT PLAINTIFF ASSERTS CLAIMS AGAINST THE OFFICERS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, AND DENIED AS TO PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS; DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS B ASED ON THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RAISE AT A LATER STAGE IN THE LITIGATION; ALL CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST THE BETHEL TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT AS AN ENTITY SEPARATE FROM THE TOWNSHIP ARE DISMISSED; DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO DISMISS BETHEL TOWNSHIP AS A PARTY TO THE CASE IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 2/15/12. 2/15/12 ENTERED AND E-MAILED.(fdc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/15/2012: # 1 memo.) (fdc, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGE B. KEAHEY,
BETHEL TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA , et al., :
AND NOW, this 15th day of February, 2012, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Docket No. 4), and Plaintiff’s Response in
Opposition(Docket No. 6), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion (Docket No. 4) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART:
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims (Counts I and II) is
GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff’s claims allege deprivations of his Fourteenth
Amendment substantive due process rights, but DENIED to the extent the claims
allege deprivations of the Fourth Amendment based on the unconstitutional seizure
of one’s person and personal property, and deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment
procedural due process rights;
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of Constitutional
Rights claim (Count III) is DENIED;
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the False Imprisonment claim (Count IV)1 is
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Harassment claim (Count V) is GRANTED;
In his Amended Complaint and Response, Plaintiff refers to this Count as “Count IIII.”
See Footnote 12 in Memorandum.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Malicious Abuse of Process claim is
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is
GRANTED as to all § 1983 claims against Bethel Township, but DENIED to the
extent that Plaintiff asserts claims against the officers in their individual capacities,
and DENIED as to Plaintiff’s state law claims;
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss based on the qualified immunity doctrine is
DENIED without prejudice to raise at a later stage in the litigation;
All claims asserted against the Bethel Township Police Department as an entity
separate from the Township are DISMISSED;
Defendants’ request to dismiss Bethel Township as a party to the case is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?