MEADOWS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 18

ORDER THAT MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS, AND PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 11/2/16. 11/2/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, EMAILED TO COUNSEL AND COPY TO LEGAL.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES R. MEADOWS
v.
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-2074

ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of November, 2016, upon consideration of the motion to
dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint, Dkt. No. 9, by defendants, Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and SEPTA Police Officers Edward Kaiser and Troy Parham,
Dkt. No. 14, and plaintiff James Meadows’s response, Dkt. No. 15, it is ORDERED that
defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1.

Defendants’ motion with respect to Count I 1 is GRANTED and plaintiff’s claim is
DISMISSED with leave to amend on or before December 2nd, 2016.

2.

Defendants’ motion with respect to Counts IV and V is GRANTED to the extent
plaintiff brings these claims against the defendant officers in their official
capacities and DENIED to the extent plaintiff brings these claims against the
defendant officers in their personal capacities.

3.

Defendants’ motion with respect to plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is
DENIED.

s/Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.
THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., J.

1

Although there is no enumerated “Count I” in the amended complaint, I refer to
paragraphs E through I of the amended complaint, Dkt. No. 9 at ECF p. 22, as Count I.