Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DEL SIGNORE v. CITY OF MCKEESPORT

March 3, 1988

Andrew Del Signore, Plaintiff,
v.
City of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, Mayor Lou Washwich, McKeesport City Council Members William Dougherty, James Honick, Carolyn W. Young, William Campbell, Sam R. Vidnovic, Joe F. Graziano and Charles D. Mikell, Police Chief James Lundie, Fire Chief Bazylac, Deputy Fire Chief Dellapenna, Building Inspector William Weissert, Ordinance Officer Joe Mulac, Ordinance Officer Mr. Kimber, City Solicitor John Cambest, Timothy Indyk Construction Co., Allegheny County Health Department, Middle Department Inspection Agency, Inc., Charles Indyk, Garth Indyk, Joseph Indyk, the Re-Development Authority of the City of McKeesport, Ted E. Jaworsky, Timothy Indyk, Edward Indyk, Ann Puc, McKeesport Department of Community Development, Defendants


Cohill, Chief Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: COHILL

COHILL, Chief Judge.

 Presently before us are motions to dismiss (or in some cases alternative motions for summary judgment) filed by Middle Department Inspection Agency, Inc., its employee Theodore Javorsky (collectively "Middle Department"), City of McKeesport, et al. ("McKeesport"), Allegheny County Department of Health ("ACDH"), and Charles Indyk, all defendants in the above-captioned action. For the reasons set forth below, we find that plaintiff Andrew Del Signore's Complaint and Amended Petitions fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted. However, we will grant plaintiff leave to amend his deficient pleadings. Accordingly, will deny Middle Department's and Charles Indyk's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. We will deny ACDH's and McKeesport's motions to dismiss, in part, without prejudice, and will reserve ruling on other portions of their motions.

 I. BACKGROUND

 Each motion to dismiss challenges, on various grounds, the sufficiency of plaintiff's Complaint and two "Amended Petitions." The plaintiff's pleadings are obscure, to say the least, but we will attempt to summarize them here. The plaintiff alleges jurisdiction of this court under 42 U.S.C. ┬ž 1983. He asserts that on June 29, 1985, the defendants conducted a "complete confiscation of [his] lifes possessions -- smashed, confiscated and or trucked away to a dump," and "unlawful restaint (jailment) while smash confiscation of all of lifes possessions were purpetrated upon plaintiff." *fn1" Plaintiff's Complaint, p. 4. He alleges that this occurred at his house on 1802 Packer Street, McKeesport, Pennsylvania. Id. at 3.

 The plaintiff claims that the defendants took such actions in violation of his following federal constitutional rights;

 
1. His "right to live on earth and garner the gifts which creator made for men to have and enjoy,"
 
2. His right to "pursue happiness thru life and liberty to do so,"
 
3. His right to own "objects of earthly made substances and or objects which give him joy in living,"
 
4. His right to "own property and manage it for his life and his family life benefit," and
 
5. His right "to not be handed a total confiscation of his valuable possessions, worth 'thousands' and rendered homeless into the middle of public 'through fare' empty handed and just the clothes on his back."

 Plaintiff's Complaint, p.3.

 II. DISCUSSION

 Section 1983 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.