United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.
AND NOW, this 9th day of February 2015, upon consideration of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, doc. nos. 40, 53 and 71, plaintiff’s response thereto, doc. nos. 47, 92 and 93,  and upon further consideration of the Commonwealth’s motion for leave to file reply, doc. no. 94, and plaintiff’s motion to file surreply, doc. no. 95, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Commonwealth’s motion for leave to file a reply, doc. no. 94, is GRANTED The Commonwealth’s reply brief is deemed filed. Doc. no. 94, 3-8.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply brief, doc. no. 95, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s surreply brief, doc. no. 95-1, is deemed filed.
3. The motions to dismiss (doc. nos. 40, 53 and 71) are GRANTED in part.
4. Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6 are DISMISSED with prejudice.
5. Count 3 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
6. Count 7 is DISMISSED with prejudice as to the Philadelphia defendants. Count 7 is DISMISSED without prejudice as to all other defendants.
7. Count 8 is DISMISSED with prejudice as to the Philadelphia defendants, Mr. Wetzel, Mr. Oppman, Mr. Wenerowicz, Ms. Harry and Mr. Mooney. Count 8 is DISMISSED without prejudice as to all other defendants.
8. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count 4 is DENIED.
9. Plaintiff’s claims against the Commonwealth defendants acting in their official capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice.
10. Within 14 days of the entry of this order, plaintiff may file a second amended complaint consistent ...