The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN JONES III, District Judge
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (doc.
15) filed by Defendants City of Pottsville and Dennis Wiederhold
on June 1, 2005. We also have before us a Motion to Dismiss filed
by the remaining Defendant Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic
(doc. 25) on July 28, 2005.
For the reasons that follow, we will grant both Motions to
Dismiss and close the file on this case.
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania on February 25, 2005. (See Rec. Doc. 1, ¶ 1). In accordance with our April 18, 2005 Order,
on May 18, 2005, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the case
sub judice in which he added the Pottsville Hospital and
Warne Clinic as an additional named Defendant.
On June 1, 2005, Defendants City of Pottsville and Dennis
Wiederhold filed a Motion to Dismiss, which has been briefed by
the parties. On July 28, 2005, Defendant Pottsville Hospital and
Warne Clinic also filed a Motion to Dismiss, which has been fully
briefed. The Motions are therefore ripe for disposition.
In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept the
veracity of a plaintiff's allegations. See Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see also White v. Napoleon,
897 F.2d 103, 106 (3d Cir. 1990). In Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65
(3d Cir. 1996), our Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit added
that in considering a motion to dismiss based on a failure to
state a claim argument, a court should "not inquire whether the
plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, only whether they are
entitled to offer evidence to support their claims." Furthermore,
"a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim
unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see
also District Council 47 v. Bradley, 795 F.2d 310 (3d Cir.
1986). FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
As we explained in our April 18, 2005 Order, Plaintiff Steven
Kachmar ("Plaintiff" or "Kachmar"), an attorney who practices in
Schuylkill, Northumberland, Carbon, and Upper Berks Counties,
alleges that on February 22, 2005, he was driving alone near the
Schuylkill County Courthouse to represent clients at a Meeting of
Creditors scheduled pursuant to § 341 of the Bankruptcy Code
before the appointed Trustee William G. Schwab. (See Am. Compl.
¶¶ 1-2, 7). Plaintiff asserts that as he was approaching
Pottsville, he became disoriented while driving "for reasons not
known to him and as he drove through the City streets he became
dazed and not capable of controlling his physical function which
would have allowed him to stop his vehicle." Id. ¶ 8.
"Plaintiff was going in and out of consciousness during this
time." Id. ¶ 9.
Moreover, Plaintiff states that he is a kidney transplant
recipient since 2003 and is required to take certain medication
to preserve the integrity of the kidney's function. Id. ¶ 10.
Plaintiff wears a medical alert bracelet on his left wrist, which
advises others that he is a transplant patient and it contains
his physician's contact information. Id. ¶ 20.
Plaintiff further alleges that on February 22, 2005, as he
approached the Schuylkill County Courthouse, he parked his
vehicle on Second Street with the intention of taking his briefcase, containing client files, into
the Courthouse; however, as he exited his vehicle, Defendant
Dennis Wiederhold ("Officer Wiederhold"), a police officer for
the Pottsville Police Department, approached Plaintiff and asked
for his driver's license, insurance information, and vehicle
registration. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. Plaintiff states that during the
above-referenced period of time when he was conversing with
Officer Wiederhold and four or five other police officers, he was
in a dazed state in which he lacked balance and equilibrium.
Id. ¶ 15. Officer Wiederhold asked Plaintiff twice if he had
been drinking alcohol, allegedly based upon his observations of
Plaintiff and the fact that Plaintiff was driving with a flat
tire. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. Plaintiff responded that he does not drink
and when asked if he had any medical problems advised Officer
Wiederhold that he had a transplanted kidney. Id. ¶ 17.
"Plaintiff advised defendant Wiederhold that the medication
Plaintiff was currently taking should not effect his balance and
equilibrium according to Defendant Wiederhold's report." Id. ¶
Plaintiff alleges that according to Officer Wiederhold's police
report, dexterity and counting tests were taken; however,
Plaintiff has no memory of such tests. Id. ¶ 21. The police
report further indicates that Officer Wiederhold advised
Plaintiff that he was being detained for suspicion of driving
while impaired and that he was being transported to the
Pottsville Hospital for a blood test. Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff asserts that Officer Wiederhold then put Plaintiff's
hands behind his back, handcuffed him, and transported him to the
Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 27.
Although Plaintiff alleges that he felt pain on his wrists from
the tight handcuffs and began to suffer breathing problems while
in the vehicle because of a heart condition, he did not "verbally
complain because of being dazed and in a semi-conscious state."
Id. ¶ 29. Subsequently, Plaintiff consented to a blood test,
which was administered by Craig Wywadis, an employee of the
Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic; however, Plaintiff has no
memory of said consent. Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiff alleges that
despite the fact that his mental condition continued to
deteriorate, instead of offering treatment and/or refusing to
treat Plaintiff, the Pottsville Hospital allowed Plaintiff to
leave the facility by himself. Id. ¶¶ 32, 35. However,
Plaintiff then avers that Officer Wiederhold offered to transport
Plaintiff to a location of his choosing, but Plaintiff advised
him that he would walk. Id. ¶ 36.
Later that day, Plaintiff alleges that his office called
Womer's Garage, the location to which Plaintiff's vehicle had
been towed, to retrieve his briefcase, but he was advised that
the vehicle and its contents were impounded and could not be
released until a police officer approved the release. Id. ¶ 43.
Plaintiff then allegedly left a message for Officer Wiederhold to
ask if he could retrieve ...