ROSSITER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DOC NO. 4 ) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 3/17/2014. 3/18/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and CHARLES
AND NOW, this 17th day of March 2014, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. No. 4), Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Doc No.
5), Defendants’ Reply (Doc. No. 6), the arguments of counsel at the hearing on the Motion held
on October 22, 2013, and the parties’ supplemental briefs (Doc. Nos. 10, 11), it is ORDERED
that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim as alleged in Count I is DISMISSED.
2. Plaintiff’s “stigma-plus” claim as alleged in Count I is DISMISSED.
3. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim in violation of his First Amendment rights based on his public
statement to the press as alleged in Count I is DISMISSED.
4. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim in violation of his First Amendment rights based on his
association with the FOP as alleged in Count I will not be dismissed and will proceed to
5. Plaintiff’s municipal liability claim against the City of Philadelphia as alleged in Count II
6. Defendant is directed to file an Answer to the remaining claim in Count I within twenty
days from the date of this Order.
BY THE COURT:
/ s/ J oel H. S l om sk y
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, 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?