to certain defendants "since the torts alleged are intentional torts"). As a result, while we will dismiss Count III as it applies to the municipal Defendants, we must deny the motion as to Officer Rhinier.
E. Count IV: Punitive Damages
The final count in Mr. Illiano's complaint contains a plea for punitive damages. Mr. Illiano now concedes that such damages are not available against clay Township and the Clay Township Police Department, but argues that the count should stand as to Officer Rhinier and Chief Stahl. Punitive damages are available in § 1983 cases where the defendants have acted in callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of others. Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, 983 F.2d 459, 469-70 (3d Cir. 1992); Bennis v. Gable, 823 F.2d 723, 734 (3d Cir. 1987). The defendants' conduct need not sink to the level of maliciousness or an intent to injure to trigger a punitive damages award. Savarese v. Agriss, 883 F.2d 1194, 1204 (3d Cir. 1989); Giroux v. Sherman, 807 F. Supp. 1182, 1190 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
Upon application of this standard to the allegations made in the complaint, we find that Mr. Illiano has properly set forth claims for punitive damages against both Officer Rhinier and Chief Stahl. As we explained above, Mr. Illiano has alleged that Officer Rhinier acted without legal justification, and that his behavior reflected an indifference to Mr. Illiano's rights. Such allegations are a sufficient predicate for a punitive damages award. Regarding Officer Stahl, our Court of Appeals has held that a defendant placed higher on the chain of command than the immediate actor can be liable for punitive damages as long as his conduct meets the requisite standard. Keenan, 983 F.2d at 470. Mr. Illiano has alleged that Chief Stahl tolerated and encouraged the alleged actions in reckless disregard of the rights of citizens like the plaintiff. Thus, the complaint contains allegations sufficient to support an award of punitive damages against Chief Stahl. Accordingly, while we will dismiss Count IV as to Clay Township and Clay Township Police Department, Mr. Illiano's punitive damages request, as to Officer Rhinier and Chief Stahl, will survive this motion.
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss Count I of the complaint to the extent it purports to state a claim pursuant to the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986, and 1988. Moreover, Count II will be dismissed as to the Clay Township Police Department, Count III will be dismissed as to the municipal defendants, and Count IV will be dismissed as to the Clay Township Police Department and Clay Township. In all other respects, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be denied. Finally, Mr. Illiano will be ordered to submit an amended complaint within ten days of the entry of the attached Order. The amended complaint shall: (1) contain the allegations supporting Plaintiff's First Amendment claim, as described in the affidavit; (2) properly serve notice on Defendants of Plaintiff's intention to seek counsel fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (3) otherwise reflect this Memorandum and Order.
An appropriate order follows.
AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 1995, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), it is hereby ORDERED, for the reasons set forth in the preceding memorandum, that said Motion is GRANTED in PART as follows:
1. Count I is hereby DISMISSED to the extent it purports to state a claim pursuant to the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986, and 1988;
2. Count II is hereby DISMISSED as to Defendant Clay Township Police Department;
3. Count III is hereby DISMISSED as to Defendants Clay Township, Clay Township Police Department, and Police Chief Stahl; and
4. Count IV is hereby DISMISSED as to Defendants Clay Township and Clay Township Police Department.
In all other respects, Defendants' Motion is hereby DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order, file an Amended Complaint consistent with this Order and attached Memorandum.
BY THE COURT:
J. Curtis Joyner, J.