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.

Onuffer v. Darby Tonwship

United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

March 6, 2014

DARBY TOWNSHIP, et al. Defendants.




Exceedingly problematic allegations of “unsolicited, unwarranted, illegal and unwanted contact” between Plaintiff, Vanessa Onuffer, and Defendant, Kevin Walker, a former Darby Township Police Officer, appear in the Complaint at issue here. Specifically, Ms. Onuffer alleges that in the summer of 2010, Mr. Walker visited her home multiple times without her permission, repeatedly inappropriately “invited” her to the police station because he wanted to “massage her”, and harassed her as she walked on the street late at night. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-13.)

Ms. Onuffer also alleges that Mr. Walker directed a fellow Darby Township Police Officer to take Ms. Onuffer into custody in the summer of 2010. That police officer allegedly handcuffed Ms. Onuffer and transported her to the Darby Township Police Department, where she was placed in a jail cell. Once there, Ms. Onuffer was required to empty her pockets and to shake out her bra, and was told that a female officer was going to conduct a more thorough search. However, Ms. Onuffer alleges that a female officer never conducted a search, and, instead, Mr. Walker entered Plaintiff’s cell and took her against her will to the women’s locker room. Once in the locker room, according to the Complaint, Mr. Walker forced Plaintiff to describe how she would perform oral sex on him. Mr. Walker then allegedly told Ms. Onuffer to “prove that [she] had nothing in [her] vagina” and forced Ms. Onuffer to remove all of her remaining clothing. (Compl. ¶24.) Mr. Walker then told Ms. Onuffer to “spread her vagina lips, ” moved his face close to her, and required that she insert her finger in her vagina and move “her finger in and around the walls of her vagina.” (Compl. ¶¶ 25-28.) Ms. Onuffer alleges that Mr. Walker’s acts were under the guise of a supposed narcotics search.

Mr. Walker subsequently released Ms. Onuffer from custody and told her not to report his actions by stating, “I don’t want to see any paperwork against me in the morning.” (Compl. ¶ 29.) During the time of undertaking all of the above conduct, Mr. Walker was in police uniform and had his gun displayed on his hip. No charges were ever filed against Ms. Onuffer, and there is no record of her arrest.

Ms. Onuffer contends that Darby Township and Robert H. Thompson, the former Chief of Police for the Darby Township Police Department, are liable for Mr. Walker’s conduct because he was a Darby Township Police Officer at the time. Specifically, Ms. Onuffer alleges in her Complaint that prior to the sexual assault and Mr. Walker’s other inappropriate actions in the summer of 2010, Chief Thompson was on notice of multiple aspects of Mr. Walker’s misconduct.

On July 19, 2011, Ms. Onuffer, along with other of his victims, reported Mr. Walker’s conduct and he was arrested and charged by the Delaware County District Attorney’s Office. However, Ms. Onuffer also alleges that on July 22, 2011, following his arrest, Mr. Walker, who was at that time a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Constable and no longer a Darby Police Officer, intimidated her during a communication at the Yeadon District Court in Yeadon, Pennsylvania.

In her Complaint filed July 19, 2013, Ms. Onuffer brings four federal causes of action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Counts 1 through 3 allege violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Count IV, brought only against Darby Township and Robert Thompson, is for failure to train/supervise. Ms. Onuffer also sets out six state causes of action against all Defendants for negligence, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, false arrest, and harassment.

On September 26, 2013, Defendants Darby Township and Robert H. Thompson (the “Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint against them for various reasons, including the operation of the statute of limitations. For the reasons discussed in greater detail below, the Court concludes that all allegations against the two Moving Defendants are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Ms. Onuffer’s claims against Darby Township and Robert H. Thompson.


A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a complaint. Although Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, ” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations and quotations omitted) (alteration in original), the Plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. (citation omitted).

To survive a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Specifically, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). The question is not whether the claimant will ultimately prevail but whether the complaint is “sufficient to cross the federal court’s threshold.” Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1296 (2011) (citation omitted). Thus, assessment of the sufficiency of a complaint is “a context-dependent exercise” because “[s]ome claims require more factual explication than others to state a plausible claim for relief.” W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85, 98 (3d Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).

In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court adheres to certain well-recognized parameters. For one, the Court “must consider only those facts alleged in the complaint and accept all of the allegations as true.” ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)); see alsoTwombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (stating that courts must assume that “all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)”); Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[A] court must consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents.”). The Court also must accept as true all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the allegations, and view those facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. SeeRocks v. City of Phila., 868 F.2d 644, 645 (3d Cir. 1989); see alsoRevell v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2010). That admonition does not demand the Court turn its back on reality. The Court need not accept as true “unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences, ” Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 232 F.3d 173, 183– 84 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations and quotations omitted), or a Plaintiff's “bald assertions” or “legal ...

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.