COLLURA v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 51

ORDER THAT PRO SE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. NO. 28), IS DENIED. THE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL INCLUDED IN THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS ALSO DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MEMORANDUM DATED 1 2/20/2012, IS AMENDED SO AS TO CORRECT THE SENTENCE THAT BEGINS ON THE THIRD LINE OF PAGE 3 TO READ, "PLAINTIFF WAS NOT CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND WAS RELEASED". IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 36 ) IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO FILE, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS, A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WHICH COMPLIES IN ALL RESPECTS WITH THE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED 12/20/2012 AND THE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM DATED 3/1/2013. IT IS FU RTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 37) IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NOS. 41 AND 43) ARE DENIED AS MOOT. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STAY OPP OSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR DISMISSAL (D0C. NO. 49) IS DENIED AS MOOT. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE (DOC. NO. 46) IS DENIED AS MOOT. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS (DOC. NO. 32) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 3/1/2013. 3/1/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_____________________________________
JASON COLLURA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, P/O CEDRIC
WHITE, P/O JOSEPH CORVI, P/O
DANIEL DAVIS, P/O MARIA ORTIZRODRIGUEZ, P/O JERROLD BATES, In
Their Individual Capacities, ALLIED
BARTON, DANIEL ROSIELLO, and
DIANE KOLWASKI,
Defendants.
_____________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 2:12-cv-4398

ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2013, upon consideration of pro se Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration (Document No. 28, filed December 28, 2012), Defendants’ Brief in
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Document No. 29, filed January 3, 2013),
and Plaintiff’s Reply in Opposition to City’s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Document No. 34, filed January 17, 2013), for the reasons stated in the
attached Memorandum dated March 1, 2013, IT IS ORDERED that pro se Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration is DENIED. The request for leave to file an interlocutory appeal included in
the Motion for Reconsideration is also DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Memorandum dated December 20, 2012, is
AMENDED so as to correct the sentence that begins on the third line of page 3 to read,
“Plaintiff was not charged with a crime and was released.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Document No.
36) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiff’s right to file, within thirty (30) days,
a second amended complaint which complies in all respects with the Memorandum and Order
dated December 20, 2012 and the attached Memorandum dated March 1, 2013. In this
connection the Court notes that, contrary to plaintiff’s statements, the filing of an amended
complaint which asserts claims that arose out of the conduct or occurrence set out in the original
complaint relates back to the date of filing of the original complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(c). That same Rule provides for the relation back of an amended complaint
which changes the party against whom a claim is asserted under specified circumstances.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Amended Complaint
(Document No. 37, filed January 18, 2013) is DENIED AS MOOT in view of the dismissal of
the First Amended Complaint without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, AlliedBarton Security Services LLC,
Daniel Rosiello and Diane Kowalski’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief Can Be Granted (Document No. 41, filed
February 1, 2013), and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed
by the City defendants (Document No. 43, filed February 1, 2013) are DENIED AS MOOT. 1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Opposition to Defendants’
Motion for Dismissal (Document No. 49, filed February 22, 2013) is DENIED AS MOOT.

1

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 20, 2013
(Document No. 45) and an opposition to AlliedBarton’s motion to dismiss on February 22, 2013
(Document No. 48).
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in
Defendant City of Philadelphia’s Answer (Document No. 46, filed February 20, 2013) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (Document
No. 32, filed January 17, 2013), is DENIED. That Motion states “an [a]ppeal has been taken in
this matter to correct all of discretion this court abused. Accordingly, a stay until disposition of
appeal and justice is returned, needs to follow.” That is an incorrect statement. No appeal has
been taken from the Memorandum and Order of December 20, 2012, granting plaintiff leave to
file an amended complaint consistent with the Memorandum and Order of December 20, 2012,
within thirty (30) days.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
JAN E. DuBOIS, J.

3