KAROLSKI v. CITY OF ALIQUIPPA et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 46 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and dismissing the City of Aliquippa from this case with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 4/4/2017. (bap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Clifford Joseph Karolski,
Chief Davis, Assistant Chief Don Couch,
Detective Stephen Roberts,
(City of Aliquippa),
Civil Action No. 15-1101
United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy, United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Aliquippa’s motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim and brief in support thereof. (ECF Nos. 46, 47). For the reasons that follow, said
motion will be granted and the City of Aliquippa (“the City”) will be dismissed from this case.
Plaintiff Clifford Joseph Karolski, who is proceeding pro se and currently confined at
SCI-Camp Hill based on an unrelated incident, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
claiming that his federal rights were violated by the above-captioned Defendants when he was
falsely charged with numerous counts of arson, notwithstanding his alibi, and was incarcerated
for approximately one month until his charges were dismissed by a magistrate at his preliminary
Because all of the parties have voluntarily consented to have the undersigned conduct any
and all proceedings in this matter, the undersigned has authority to enter this Memorandum
Order on the pending dispositive motion. (ECF Nos. 9, 40); 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed.R.Civ.P.
On December 22, 2016, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF Nos.
41, 42) that dismissed, inter alia, all of Plaintiff’s claims in his amended complaint against the
City.2 The Court allowed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint with respect to his claims
for wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment on or before January 20,
2017. The Court received Plaintiff’s second amended complaint past that date on January 27,
2017, but it was dated January 19, 2017. (ECF No. 43). Accordingly, under the prisoner
mailbox rule, the Court deems the second amended complaint to be timely filed. See Pearson v.
Sec’y Dep’t of Corr., 775 F.3d 598, 600 n. 2 (3d Cir. 2015).
In filing his second amended complaint, it appears that Plaintiff may have abandoned his
claims against the City because there are no specific factual allegations against it. This is not
entirely clear, however, because he lists the City in the caption, but only in parentheses after the
other individual Defendants. Nevertheless, even if Plaintiff is still attempting to pursue claims
against the City, he has failed to state a facially plausible claim for relief. As the City argues in
its motion to dismiss, there are no well-pleaded factual allegations that allow the Court to draw a
reasonable inference that the City had in place an unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom
that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation. See (Br. in Supp. at 7-8).
Instead, the second amended complaint only makes assertions against the individual Defendants:
Davis, Couch, and Roberts. Therefore, there are insufficient allegations in the second amended
complaint to state a claim for municipal liability against the City, see Monell v. Dep’t of Social
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 (1978), and the Court will grant the City’s motion, which Plaintiff
The Court also dismissed the Pennsylvania State Police and the Arson Division of the
Pennsylvania State Police from the case pursuant to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and
dismissed the following claims from the amended complaint with prejudice: failure to do due
diligence; failure to be provided Miranda warnings; slander; deceit; misconduct; and wrongful
has chosen not to oppose.3
Because Plaintiff failed to correct the pleading deficiencies against the City after being
put on notice of the same via the prior Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that allowing
Plaintiff another attempt to amend this claim would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State
Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
Additionally, the Court hereby incorporates its
discussion of municipal liability in the prior Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 41 at 14-16) as if
the same is fully set forth herein.
AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2017, upon consideration of the Court’s Memorandum
Opinion and Order from December 22, 2016, the second amended complaint, and Defendant
City of Aliquippa’s motion to dismiss and brief in support thereof, it is hereby ORDERED that
the City of Aliquippa’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 46) is
GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the City of Aliquippa is hereby dismissed from this
action with prejudice.
Dated: April, 4, 2017.
By the Court:
s/ Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge
CLIFFORD JOSEPH KAROLSKI
SCI Camp Hill
P.O. Box 200
Camp Hill, PA 17001
All registered counsel via CM-ECF
Plaintiff’s response in opposition to the pending motion was due by March 6, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?