SUBE et al v. CITY OF ALLENTOWN et al

Filing 30

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 9/27/2013. 9/27/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTHONY SUBE,
Plaintiff
vs.
CITY OF ALLENTOWN; and
CHIEF ROGER MACLEAN
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action
No. 11-cv-05736

O R D E R
NOW, this 27th day of September, 2013, upon
consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which motion was filed on
November 13, 2012; upon consideration of the pleadings and
record papers; and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying
Opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
and/or Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is granted in
part and denied in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the within motion is
granted the extent that it seeks to dismiss plaintiff’s
procedural due process claim against defendant Chief MacLean.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s procedural due
process claim against defendant Chief Roger J. MacLean is

dismissed from Count III of plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint. 1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is
granted to the extent it seeks to strike paragraph 104 from the
Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraph 104 is stricken
from the Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the within motion is denied
in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall have until
October 22, 2013 to file and serve their answer to the Second
Amended Complaint.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James Knoll Gardner
James Knoll Gardner
United States District Judge

1

___

Count III of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint asserts a
procedural due process claim against both defendant Chief Roger J. MacLean
and defendant City of Allentown. For the reasons expressed in the
accompanying Opinion, this Order dismisses both plaintiff’s procedural due
process claim against Chief MacLean and paragraph 104 from Count III.
Paragraph 104 of Count III alleges aspects of plaintiff’s due
process claims against both Chief MacLean and the City of Allentown.
Remaining in Count III is plaintiff’s due process claim against the city
(minus the allegations in paragraph 104, which have been dismissed).
- ii -