Defendants seek to have all claims dismissed except 1 Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have identified ADA Bosco by first and last name, nor have they done so for the Defendant State Troopers. Pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss, the first filed by Defendants Butler County, Butler County Sheriff Michael Slupe, Butler County Public Defender's Office, Butler County District Attorney's Office, Butler County Public Defender Charles Nedz, and Butler County "Assistant District Attorney Bosco"j (collectively, "Butler County Defendants"), ECF No.4 and the second filed by Defendants Pennsylvania State Police Troop D, "Trooper Jenkins," "Trooper Mifsob," "Trooper Driscoll," and "Trooper Berger" (collectively, "Commonwealth Defendants"), ECF No.7. Hornak, United States District Judge This is a § 1983 case involving a series of events between 2008 to 2010, in which pro se Plaintiff Matthew Dec alleges that various officials and legal officers of Butler County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania violated his Federal constitutional rights and committed state law torts. PENNSYL VANIA STATE POLICE, TROOP D, et al. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MATTHEW P. § 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, (b) § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim, and (c) § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, all arising out of the alleged pepper spraying incident. All claims against Trooper Berger are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE except for Plaintiffs (a) 42 U.S.C. For the reasons stated within, all claims against Defendants Trooper Jenkins, Trooper Mifsob, Trooper Driscoll, Pennsylvania State Police Troop D, Butler County Sheriff Mike Slupe, Butler County ADA Bosco, Butler County District Attorney's Office, Butler County Public Defender Charles Nedz, Butler County Public Defender's Office, and Butler County are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Still, he has properly alleged a specific event, being pepper sprayed by the police while being chained to a bench, without necessity or adequate legal justifica tion, for which Trooper Berger might be liable under 42 U.S.C. Many of the claims and arguments presented by Mr.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |