United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
NORA BARRY FISCHER, District Judge.
This is a civil rights case wherein Plaintiff Richard Oleniacz seeks damages against Plum Borough and several of its police officers stemming from a 2013 search of his residence. (Docket No. 14). Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint in Part. (Docket No. 15). In response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff both provided a substantive response and sought leave of Court to amend his Monell claim if the Court found it lacking. (Docket No. 19). Although Defendants' arguments are well taken, given the nature of this case ( i.e., a civil rights action), the Court needs to treat same with some degree of lenity, see Releford v. Pa. State Univ., Civ. No. 10-1621, 2011 WL 900946, at *12 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2011). Further, Defendants continually make the assertion that Sergeant Kapusta is not a policymaker in briefing and at oral argument, yet the Court needs facts regarding Sergeant Kapusta's duties and responsibilities on the day in question to make that determination. See City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 126 (1988). Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to again amend his Complaint.
AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2015, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED; said Second Amended Complaint shall be filed by August 10, 2015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in Part is DENIED, as moot, given ...