SUBER-APONTE v. BOROUGH OF POTTSTOWN et al
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 55 , IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS' MOITON IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 9/23/16. 9/23/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(ti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BOROUGH OF POTTSTOWN, MARK
FLANDERS, JAMES YOST, CHARLES
WELLER, RICHARD DRUMHELLER,
AND NOW, this 23rd day September, 2016, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 55); Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition
thereto (ECF No. 58); and Defendants’ Reply in Support thereof (ECF No. 81), and for the
reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum of September 23, 2016 (ECF No. 87), IT IS
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
(1) Defendants’ motion is GRANTED with respect to the following claims, which are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:
(a) All claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, 18 U.S.C. § 245, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c) against all Defendants;
(b) All Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Drumheller, Flanders, and
(c) Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against Defendants
Drumheller, Flanders, and Weller;
(d) The claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Ninth Amendment) against the Borough of
(e) The claim for negligence against the Borough of Pottstown.
(2) Defendants’ motion is DENIED with respect to the following claims:
(a) The claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Deprivation of rights – Fourteenth
Amendment: Equal Protection) against Defendant Yost;
(b) The claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against Defendant
(c) The claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment retaliation) against the
Borough of Pottstown.
BY THE COURT:
/S/WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.
WENDY BEETLESTONE, 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?