The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joyner, Judge.
This is a civil rights case brought by Plaintiff Larry Burton, a/k/a
Sean Jackson, ("Plaintiff") against the City of Philadelphia; the
Philadelphia Department of Human Services ("DHS"); Joan Reeves,
Commissioner of DHS ("Reeves"); the Youth Study Center ("YSC"); Clarence
Holmes, Director of YSC ("Holmes") (collectively, "Moving Defendants");
and several other Defendants not party to the present motion. In his
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his federally
protected civil rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In
addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed several common law
torts, including assault and battery, negligence, gross negligence,
invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Finally, Plaintiff requests punitive damages.
Presently before the Court is the Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons below, we will grant
the Moving Defendants' Motion in part and deny it in part.
All of the claims in this action arise from the medical treatment, or
lack thereof, that Plaintiff received while he was incarcerated at YSC
beginning in February 1997. Plaintiff alleges that at the time of his
incarceration he had, or developed shortly after, a number of severe
physical symptoms stemming from a toothache. Plaintiff further alleges
that these symptoms worsened to the point where he developed an abscess
in his cheek that eventually burst, leaving a disfiguring facial scar.
Although Plaintiff concedes that he did receive some medical treatment
for his symptoms after the abscess had burst, he maintains that such
treatment was insufficient and/or untimely. Based on Defendants' failure
to provide adequate medical treatment, Plaintiff filed this action in the
Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County on December 22, 1999.
Defendants thereafter removed the case to this Court.
In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all
facts alleged in a complaint and view them in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff. See Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906
(3d Cir. 1997). A motion to dismiss may only be granted where the
allegations fail to state any claim upon which relief can be granted.
See id. Notwithstanding this standard, a court "need not credit a
complaint's bald assertions or legal conclusions." See In re Burlington
Coat Factory Secs. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1429-30
(3d Cir. 1997)
(internal quotations omitted). Further, a complaint may be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) where a defendant argues that he is entitled to
immunity, even though immunity is generally characterized as an
affirmative defense. Moser v. Bascelli, 865 F. Supp. 249, 252 (E.D.Pa.
1994), aff'd, 70 F.3d 1256 (3d Cir. 1995). We apply the above principles
to Plaintiff's claims against each Defendant in turn.
II. Claims Against DHS and YSC
To begin, we will grant the Moving Defendants' Motion with respect to
all claims brought against DHS and YSC. Neither DHS or YSC has an
independent corporate existence from the City of Philadelphia;
therefore, all claims against them must be brought in the name of the
City. See 53 P.S. § 16257; Regalbuto v. City of Philadelphia,
937 F. Supp. 374, 377 (E.D.Pa. 1995) (dismissing claims against Philadelphia
police and fire departments); Duvall v. Borough of Oxford, Civ. A. No.
90-0629, 1992 WL 59163, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 19, 1992) (dismissing claim
against county prison).
As noted above, Plaintiff alleges a number of common law claims
against the City of Philadelphia, Reeves, and Holmes. The Moving
Defendants argue that the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act,
42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8541, et seq., ("the Tort Claims Act") provides
them with immunity to these types of claims. We agree.
The Tort Claims Act makes local governments and their employees immune
to suit, except as provided for in eight narrow statutory exceptions.
See §§ 8541-8545. None of Plaintiff's several claims against the
Moving Defendants is conceivably within the Tort Claims Act's
exceptions. See § 8542(b) (listing exceptions). As a ...