OLENIACZ v. CUMBERLEDGE et al

Filing 27

ORDER indicating that, for reasons more stated fully within, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is granted; said Second Amended Complaint shall be filed by 8/10/15. It is further ordered that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in Part 15 is denied, as moot, given the Court's grant of leave to amend. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/10/15. (abo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

RICHARD OLENIACZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORMER OFFICER JEREMY
CUMBERLEDGE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15-346
Hon. Nora Barry Fischer

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This is a civil rights case wherein Plaintiff Richard Oleniacz seeks damages against Plum
Borough and several of its police officers stemming from a 2013 search of his residence.
(Docket No. 14).

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended

Complaint in Part.1 (Docket No. 15). In response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff
both provided a substantive response and sought leave of Court to amend his Monell claim if the
Court found it lacking. (Docket No. 19). Although Defendants’ arguments are well taken, given
the nature of this case (i.e., a civil rights action), the Court needs to treat same with some degree
of lenity, see Releford v. Pa. State Univ., Civ. No. 10-1621, 2011 WL 900946, at *12 (M.D. Pa.
Mar. 14, 2011). Further, Defendants continually make the assertion that Sergeant Kapusta is not
a policymaker in briefing and at oral argument, yet the Court needs facts regarding Sergeant
Kapusta’s duties and responsibilities on the day in question to make that determination. See City
of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 126 (1988). Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to

1

The Court notes that this is the second Motion to Dismiss filed in this action. (Docket Nos. 3, 15). In the first
Motion, Defendants sought to dismiss both claims against them. (Docket No. 3). In the second Motion, Defendants
only seek dismissal of the Monell claim Plaintiff brings. (Docket No. 15).

1

again amend his Complaint.
AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2015, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint is GRANTED; said Second Amended Complaint shall be filed by August 10, 2015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint in Part is DENIED, as moot, given the Court’s grant of leave to amend.

s/Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record

2