CHAPPELL v. THE HORSHAM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [#11] IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST CHIEF WILLIAM J. DALY IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ARE DISMISSED. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST OFFIC ER JEFFREY WOODRUFF, OFFICER ANDREW NISBET, OFFICER JOSE ORTIZ, AND LIEUTENANT K. JOHN POTTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES ARE DISMISSED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [#11] IS DENIED WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS IN CO UNT I AGAINST OFFICER WOODRUFF, OFFICER NISBET, OFFICER ORTIZ, AND LIEUTENANT POTTS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [#11] IS GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS CLAIM IN COUNT I OF PLAINTIFF'S S ECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [#12]; DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [#11] IS GRANTED ON COUNTS II AND III OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [#12]; DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [#11] IS DENIED WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFF'S NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN COUNTS IV AND V AGAINST THE HORSHAM PD, AND PLAINTIFF'S CONVERSION CLAIMS IN COUNT VI AGAINST OFFICER WOODRUFF, OFFICER NISBET, OFFICER ORTIZ, AND LIEUTENANT POTTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES. DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO FILE AN ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S REMAINING CLAIMS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 2/21/17. 2/22/17 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VIRGINIA CHAPPELL,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-2650

v.
THE HORSHAM TOWNSHIP POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.
Defendants.

ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of February 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11), Defendants’
Supplemental Brief (Doc. No. 16), and Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. No. 18), and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s claims against Chief William J. Daly in his individual and official capacity are
DISMISSED.
2. Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Jeffrey Woodruff, Officer Andrew Nisbet, Officer Jose
Ortiz, and Lieutenant K. John Potts in their official capacities are DISMISSED.
3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s
Fourth Amendment claims in Count I against Officer Woodruff, Officer Nisbet, Officer
Ortiz, and Lieutenant Potts in their individual capacities.

1

4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED with respect to the
substantive due process claim in Count I of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc.
No. 12);
5. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED on Counts II and III of
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12);
6. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s
negligence claims in Counts IV and V against the Horsham PD, and Plaintiff’s
conversion claims in Count VI against Officer Woodruff, Officer Nisbet, Officer Ortiz,
and Lieutenant Potts in their individual capacities.
7. Defendants are ORDERED to file an Answer to Plaintiff’s remaining claims within
fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joel H. Slomsky, J.
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J.

2