Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Collura v. City of Philadelphia

United States District Court, Third Circuit

August 1, 2013

JASON COLLURA, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, P/O CEDRIC WHITE, P/O JOSEPH CORVI, P/O DANIEL DAVIS, P/O MARIA ORTIZ-RODRIGUEZ, P/O JERROLD BATES, In Their Individual Capacities, ALLIED BARTON, DANIEL ROSIELLO, and DIANE KOLWASKI, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of the arrest of pro se plaintiff Jason Collura on July 22, 2010. The initial Complaint, which was removed from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to this Court on August 2, 2012, included both federal and state claims against defendants City of Philadelphia, Police Officers Cedric White, Joseph Corvi, and Daniel Davis, Sergeant Maria Ortiz-Rodriguez, Inspector Jerrold Bates, in their individual capacities (collectively "City Defendants"), and Allied Barton Security Services LLC, ("Allied Barton").[1] The federal claims in the Complaint were asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff also set forth in the Complaint claims under Pennsylvania law for false arrest, illegal imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

City Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims and AlliedBarton moved to dismiss all claims asserted against them. City Defendants also moved to strike impertinent and scandalous allegations in plaintiff's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f); AlliedBarton joined in the latter Motion.

The Court, by Memorandum and Order dated December 20, 2012, dismissed a number of plaintiff's claims for failing to state claims of: (1) false arrest and illegal imprisonment against Sergeant Ortiz-Rodriguez, Inspector Bates, and AlliedBarton; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress against all City Defendants and AlliedBarton; (3) a violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution against all City Defendants; (4) a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against Sergeant Ortiz-Rodriguez and Inspector Bates; (5) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sergeant Ortiz-Rodriguez Inspector Bates, and AlliedBarton; (6) a violation of Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution against all City Defendants; (7) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against Sergeant Ortiz-Rodriguez and Inspector Bates; (8) a violation of Article I, Section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution against all City Defendants; and (9) a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against Sergeant Ortiz-Rodriguez and Inspector Bates. The Court also concluded that plaintiff had failed to state a claim warranting equitable relief. The dismissal was without prejudice to plaintiff's right to re-assert all such claims if warranted by the facts and the law.

In the Memorandum and Order dated December 20, 2012, the Court also granted City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Impertinent and Scandalous Allegations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and dismissed the remainder of the Complaint without prejudice to plaintiff's right to file an amended complaint consistent with the Memorandum and Order within thirty (30) days.

Plaintiff responded to the Memorandum and Order with a number of submissions. First, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which included a request for permission to file an interlocutory appeal. Second, he filed a Notice to Stand on Complaint, in which he "announc[ed] [his] intention to stand on his complaint and disavows any intention to reinstitute the litigation..." Third, he filed a Motion for Recusal, in which he questioned the Court's impartiality. Fourth, he filed a Motion to Stay the Proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal.

Notwithstanding his Notice to Stand on Complaint, on January 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, in which he essentially re-asserted the same claims as were set forth in the original Complaint. Those same claims were made against the same defendants and two additional defendants, Daniel Rosiello and Diane Kowalski, both employees of AlliedBarton. Plaintiff simultaneously filed a Motion to Stay his Amended Complaint, again citing his request for an interlocutory appeal.

For a second time, City Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims and AlliedBarton moved to dismiss all claims asserted against them in the First Amended Complaint. City Defendants also filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint, and plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the affirmative defenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

The Court, by Memorandum and Order dated March 1, 2013, denied the Motion for Reconsideration, denied plaintiff's request for permission to file an interlocutory appeal, and dismissed all the claims in the First Amended Complaint without prejudice to the filing of a second amended complaint consistent with the Memoranda and Orders dated December 20, 2012 and March 1, 2013 within thirty (30) days. The Court's reasoning was based on the admittedly non-compliant nature of the First Amended Complaint: plaintiff admitted in his opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss that he filed the First Amended Complaint "for the docket and nothing else, as Plaintiff did not comply with any invalid and bogus advice from the [Court]." (Pl.'s Opp. to Defs.' Mots. To Dismiss, at 2-3.) The Court also denied as moot plaintiff's request to stay the Amended Complaint and his Motion to Strike City Defendants' Affirmative Defenses. By separate Order dated March 1, 2013, the Court denied plaintiff's Motion for Recusal.

On March 28, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, in which he dropped his federal claims. In that Complaint, plaintiff asserts only state law claims: (1) of false arrest and illegal imprisonment against all defendants, (2) under the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, Section 8 against the City Defendants, and (3) of intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against all defendants.

Contemporaneously with the filing of his Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand to Court of Common Pleas, in which he argues the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims.[2]

On April 4, 2013, plaintiff filed a "Response to Memorandum and Order, " in which he expressed his disagreement with the Court's March 1, 2013 Memorandum and Order.

AlliedBarton, Rosiello, and Kowalski now move to dismiss all claims asserted against them in plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. City Defendants separately move to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Alternatively, City Defendants seek the dismissal of all claims except the false arrest and illegal imprisonment claims asserted against Police Officers Cedric White, Joseph Corvi, and Daniel Davis.

For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Motion to Decline Supplemental Jurisdiction are denied, AlliedBarton, Rosiello, and Kowalski's Motion to Dismiss is granted, and City Defendants' ...


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.