DOTTERER v. PINTO et al

Filing 16

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ALL REFERENCES TO THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AS A BASIS FOR RELIEF ARE STRICKEN FROM THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS TO THE REMAINING CLAIMS ARE DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 2/10/2014. 2/11/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD A. DOTTERER
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS PINTO, ET AL.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 13-06903

ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of February, 2014, upon consideration of Defendants
Borough of Catasauqua, Kim Moyer, and Thomas Pinto’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No.
8), Defendants Borough of North Catasauqua, Douglas F. Kish, and Rebecca Saborsky’s
motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 9) and all responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the
defendants’ motions (Doc. No. 8 and 9) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART as follows:
1. All references to the Eighth Amendment as a basis for relief are STRIKEN
from the plaintiff’s complaint;1 and
2.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss as to the remaining claims are DENIED.
BY THE COURT:

/s/Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

1

The defendants have not moved to strike, only to dismiss. Given the organization of the complaint, no single count
can be dismissed since none are brought under the Eighth Amendment alone. For this reason, I am striking those
parts pertaining to the Eighth Amendment sua sponte, since it is clear that it is legally inapplicable. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(f).