IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 10, 2009
LARRY LEE WALKER, PLAINTIFF
WILLIAM B. WENTZ, THE CITY OFYORK, DARRAH'S AUTOBODY, AND STEVEN BUFFINGTON, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner, Judge
AND NOW, this 10th day of March, 2009, upon consideration of defendants' motion (Doc. 40) to dismiss or for a more definite statement, and it appearing that a previous memorandum and order of court (Doc. 37)*fn1 granted defendants' preceding motions for a more definite statement, (see Doc. 37 at 16-17 ¶¶ 1.b, 2.a), and instructed plaintiff to file a third amended complaint identifying which constitutional deprivations were committed by each defendant, (id. ¶ 3), and it further appearing that the third amended complaint describes the facts from which plaintiff's claims arise, (see Doc. 39 ¶¶ 12-31), that Count I of the complaint advances claims against defendant William B. Wentz for excessive force, unlawful search of plaintiff's home, unlawful seizure of plaintiff's automobiles, and First Amendment retaliation, (id. ¶¶ 34-36), that Count II states claims against defendant Steven Buffington for unlawful search of plaintiff's home and unlawful seizure of plaintiff's automobiles,*fn2 (id. ¶¶ 38-39), that Count III alleges a claim against defendant Darrah's Autobody for unlawful seizure of plaintiff's automobiles,*fn3 (id. ¶¶ 38-39), that Count IV contains a claim against defendant City of York for municipal liability,*fn4 (id. ¶¶ 44-45), and that Count V avers a substantive due process claim against all defendants (id. ¶ 46),*fn5 and the court concluding that "[a] motion for a more definite statement is not a substitute for the discovery process," Wheeler v. U.S. Postal Serv., 120 F.R.D. 487, 488 (M.D. Pa. 1987), and that the same should be granted only when a pleading is "so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response," FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e), and the court further concluding that the third amended complaint describes the actions of each defendant that give rise to liability, that it identifies the constitutional doctrines that each defendant allegedly violated, and that the same, viewed in toto, therefore provides defendants with "fair notice of what the . . . claim[s are] and the grounds upon which [they] rest," Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S 544, ---, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007)),*fn6 it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motion (Doc. 40) to dismiss or for a more definite statement is DENIED.
2. A revised pretrial and trial schedule shall issue by future order of court.