claims, Fifth Amendment Due Process claims and punitive damages claims against Defendant Bristol Township and accordingly, these claims will be dismissed. The sufficiency of the remaining claims will be addressed in this memorandum.
1. HISTORY OF THE CASE
According to the allegations set forth in the complaint, the Defendant Officers Rink and Rantin entered the Plaintiff's residence in response to an alleged call for assistance. The Plaintiff avers that Officers Rink and Rantin used excessive force in effectuating his arrest by means of "striking the Plaintiff in and about the head, arms, shoulders, legs, buttocks, and other areas, using nightsticks, "stun guns" and other implements." The Plaintiff Joseph Carroll thereby suffered mental anguish and physical injuries including various cuts, bruises, abrasions, injuries to his musculo-skeletal system, and neurological damage and impairment. In addition, the Plaintiff contends these actions by the officers were without justification and his arrest was without probable cause.
Plaintiff Joseph Carroll's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Bristol Township and Chief of Police Officer John Tegzes are based on allegations that the Township "permitted, encouraged, tolerated and ratified a pattern and practice of unjustified, unreasonable and illegal arrests and illegal and excessive use of force" by failing to prosecute and investigate and by covering up such occurrences. Accordingly, the Plaintiff contends that this activity by the Township led officers to believe that such conduct was permissible. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that the Township and Officer Tegzes failed to adequately train officers in the proper use of "stun guns" and nightsticks, and in the proper use of force in effectuating an arrest. These omissions, according to the Plaintiff, evidence deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff's rights.
Plaintiff Patricia Carroll's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is based on alleged severe property damage to her home which happened in the course of the arrest.
2. STANDARD APPLICABLE TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) MOTIONS TO DISMISS
In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint together with all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom and construe them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990); Hough/Lowe Assoc., Inc. v. CLX Realty Co., 760 F. Supp. 1141 (E.D.Pa. 1991). A court may grant a motion to dismiss only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support the relief requested. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957); Labov v. Lalley, 809 F.2d 220, 221-22 (3d Cir. 1987).
Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have a heightened specificity requirement. Accordingly, complaints must contain "a modicum of factual specificity, identifying the particular conduct of defendants that is alleged to have harmed the plaintiffs." Colburn v. Upper Darby Township, 838 F.2d 663, 666 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing Ross v. Meagan, 638 F.2d 646, 650 (3d Cir. 1981)). This more stringent requirement is imposed to protect state officials from frivolous claims as well as to provide defendants adequate notice to enable them to draft their responsive pleading. Id. This requirement may be satisfied by pleading the time and place of the alleged conduct, the individuals responsible, and the conduct violating the plaintiff's rights. Id.
3. THE SUFFICIENCY OF JOSEPH CARROLL'S 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CLAIM AGAINST BRISTOL TOWNSHIP BASED ON AN OFFICIAL POLICY OR CUSTOM
In Count III of the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to hold the defendant Bristol Township liable based on an alleged official policy and custom of permitting, tolerating, encouraging and ratifying a pattern of illegal arrests and use of excessive force by its officers. The Defendant Bristol Township may be held liable only if the alleged conduct "implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers" or is "visited pursuant to governmental custom" even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decisionmaking channels." 838 F.2d at 671 (quoting Monell v. Dep't of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-691, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978). According to the court in Colburn, "an 'official policy' may be inferred from informal acts or omissions of supervising municipal officials." Id. at 671 (quoting Estate of Bailey by Oare v. County of York, 768 F.2d 503, 508 (3d Cir. 1985)).
In the matter at hand, the Plaintiff has pleaded no facts to support his allegation that such a policy or custom actually exists and therefore, this claim must be dismissed unless Plaintiff can amend his complaint to cure this deficiency. The Plaintiff has made broad allegations to support his claim against the Township. The Plaintiff alleges in part that the Township,
"failed to discipline or prosecute or in any manner deal with known incidents of excessive force;. . . refused to investigate complaints or previous incidents of excessive force . . . failed and refused to properly train its officers in their limitations on using "stun guns" and nightsticks . . . [and] maintained no or, at the very least an inadequate system of review of illegal and warrantless arrests and use of excessive force."