Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

William Anthony Eldridge v. Officer Matthew Diehl

September 22, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Buckwalter, S.J.


Currently pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff William Anthony Eldridge's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.


This matter stems from Plaintiff's November 5, 2008 arrest for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, criminal conspiracy, and related charges. (Pl.'s Mot. Amend ¶ 2; Defs.' Resp. Opp'n, Ex. A.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Officer Matthew Diehl violently attacked him during the course of the arrest, causing significant injuries to his face, and that Defendants Sergeant John Hill and Officer April Kummerer*fn1 failed to intervene and prevent those injuries. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19-21, 24, 44.) He further alleges that once he was in police custody, Defendant Diehl ignored his request to be taken to a hospital. (Id. ¶ 27.) Finally, Plaintiff contends that Defendants Officer Patrick Bull and John Doe -- a paramedic who examined Plaintiff after the arrest -- falsified a medical report to hide the severity of Plaintiff's injuries. (Id. ¶¶ 38-41.)

Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on August 24, 2010. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 25, 2010, which this Court granted in part and denied in part on February 2, 2011. On February 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which includes the following claims: (1) Defendants Diehl, Hill, and Kummerer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment during the course of Plaintiff's arrest; (2) Defendant Diehl ignored Plaintiff's request for medical treatment in violation of either the Fourteenth Amendment or Eighth Amendment; and (3) Defendants Bull and Doe conspired to deny Plaintiff medical treatment in violation of the Fourteenth or Eighth Amendment. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-46.)

On May 12, 2011, Plaintiff was convicted in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas of resisting arrest; disorderly conduct; manufacture, delivery, or possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver; and intentionally possessing a controlled substance by a person not registered. (Defs.' Resp. Opp'n 2.) The criminal conspiracy charge, however, was withdrawn. (Pl.'s Mot. Amend ¶ 21; Defs.' Resp. Opp'n, Ex. A.) This charge was based on the allegation that Plaintiff conspired with another man to possess and distribute crack cocaine. (Pl.'s Mot. Amend ¶ 3.) On August 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend to include claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution, alleging that the criminal conspiracy charge was filed without probable cause and with the intent to subject Plaintiff to more severe penalties. (Id. ¶ 32.) Defendants filed their Response in Opposition on August 31, 2011. The Motion is now ripe for the Court's consideration.


Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may seek the court's leave to amend a pleading, and the court should freely grant such leave "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that "absent undue or substantial prejudice, an amendment should be allowed under Rule 15(a) unless 'denial [can] be grounded in bad faith or dilatory motive, truly undue or unexplained delay, repeated failure to cure deficiency by amendments previously allowed or futility of amendment.'" Lundy v. Adamar of N.J., Inc., 34 F.3d 1173, 1196-97 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 652-53 (3d Cir. 1989)). "Amendment of the complaint is futile if the amendment will not cure the deficiency in the original complaint or if the amended complaint cannot withstand a renewed motion to dismiss." Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 292 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing Massarsky v. Gen. Motors Corp., 706 F.2d 111, 125 (3d Cir. 1983)).


A cause of action for malicious prosecution made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must allege the following:

(1) the defendants initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding ended in plaintiff's favor; (3) the proceeding was initiated without probable cause; (4) the defendants acted maliciously or for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice; and (5) the plaintiff suffered deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of seizure as a consequence of a legal proceeding.

Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 521 (3d Cir. 2003). To bring a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: "(1) that there was an arrest; and (2) that [the] arrest was made without probable cause." Williams v. Temple Univ., No. Civ.A.04-831, 2011 WL 2516234, at *5 (E.D. Pa. June 21, 2011) (citing Dowling v. City of Philadelphia, 855 F.2d 136, 141 (3d Cir. 1988)).

Plaintiff requests leave to amend his Amended Complaint to include claims for both false arrest and malicious prosecution against Defendants Diehl, Hill, and Kummerer.*fn2 (Pl.'s Mot. Amend ¶ 32.) According to Plaintiff, the assistant district attorney withdrew the criminal conspiracy charge during the course of his trial because there was insufficient evidence to prove the offense. (Id. ¶¶ 19-21.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Diehl filed the conspiracy charge, which he knew to be false, so that Plaintiff would face more severe penalties, including a higher bail. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 32.) Plaintiff also avers that Defendants Kummerer and Hill, as well as Officer David Howells III, knew that Defendant Diehl fabricated the conspiracy charge but failed to report his misconduct. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 28-32.) As a result, Plaintiff contends he was falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted in connection with the charge.

Defendants do not respond to Plaintiff's allegations concerning the criminal conspiracy charge or the reason it was withdrawn. Rather, they argue that pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), allowing Plaintiff to sue for false arrest and malicious prosecution would constitute an impermissible collateral attack on his underlying conviction ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.