The opinion of the court was delivered by: Chief Judge Kane
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss part of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e).*fn1 (Doc. No. 6.) The parties have fully briefed the issues (Doc. Nos. 7, 9, 11), and the motion is ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion.
On September 24, 2004, Officer Joel Good arrested Plaintiff Patrick Clay. (Compl. ¶ 9.) While taking Clay into custody, Officer Good placed handcuffs on Clay's wrists for approximately two hours. (Compl. ¶ 10.) According to Clay, Officer Good intentionally over-tightened the handcuffs despite Clay's protestations of severe pain and discomfort. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-11.) As a result, Clay's function of his left wrist and hand have been impaired. (Compl. ¶ 11.)
The remainder of Clay's allegations are found in paragraph 12 of his complaint, which the Court will reprint in full:
On or about 2005-2006 the defendants harassed and intimidated the plaintiff in the following particulars:
a. On or about August 10, 2005 local police, led by the defendant Miller, came to plaintiff's home saying they "needed to check I.D.s". In reality Miller was there attempting to pump the plaintiff for information so that we [sic] police could use him as a confidential informant.
b. On or about July 2005 plaintiff's automobile was damaged by one Albert Wilson. When the plaintiff attempted to file charges he was refused. Upon information and belief the defendant Redifore was responsible.
c. On or about December 2005 plaintiff attempted to file charges against another person for stolen checks and credit cards. The York Area Regional Police took the plaintiff's evidence (which was irrefutable) but have not contacted him since.
d. On or about January 2006 Officer Shollenberger called plaintiff's 10-year-old son Steven, on Steven's cell phone, and interrogated him about a stun gun. On or about January 15, 2006 the defendant Miller contacted plaintiff on his cell phone soliciting him to make drug buys. Plaintiff refused. On January 17, 2006 Mr. Good issued plaintiff a ticket for driving on a suspended license. All of this was done as a way to intimidate plaintiff into making drug buys for the police.
f. [sic] Plaintiff then personally complained to Lt. Redifore on or about March 17, 2006, but Redifore ratified Shollenberger's actions even though Shollenberger contacted neither the plaintiff nor Steven's mother as per the requirements of state law. When plaintiff had finished voicing his concerns Lt. Redifore asked the plaintiff who his "probation officer" was.
e. [sic] Later that same day (March 17, 2006), the defendant Woodring, the plaintiff's probation officer, came to defendant's house with five other probation officers and a local police officer. When Woodring entered plaintiff's home he said "I heard your meeting didn't go well with the Lieutenant" (meaning Lt. Redifore). Plaintiff's home was then searched at the direction of, and under the supervision of, Mr. Woodring. Nothing was found.
These allegations amount to the following vignettes: (1) Defendant Miller asked Plaintiff for ID at Plaintiff's home in an effort to "pump" him for information; (2) Defendant Redifore refused to allow Plaintiff to press charges for a pair of incidents; (3) nonparty Schollenberger contacted Plaintiff's ten-year-old son about a stun gun, Defendant Miller attempted to solicit Plaintiff into purchasing drugs, and (presumably) when Plaintiff refused, Defendant Good issued a citation to Plaintiff for driving with a suspended license; (4) Defendant Redifore ignored Plaintiff's police-misconduct complaints, and instead ...