United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM OPINION DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S
J. Schwab United States District Court Judge
September 29, 2017, Plaintiff Barry Hoffman filed a Complaint
against Defendants Allegheny County Police Department,
(“ACPD”). City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police
(“Pittsburgh PD”), Munhall Police Department
(“Munhall PD”), and Pennsylvania State Police.
Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff raises five claims stemming
from a multi-police agency event that left his property
severely damaged and in violation of the building code with
multiple broken windows, damage to entryways, and tear gas
damage. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff alleges:
• Count I - Taking without just compensation in
violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
• Count II - Violation of due process for deprivation of
property pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
• Count III - Negligence pursuant to 42 P.S. §
• Count IV - Inverse Condemnation for deprivation of
property without just compensation (withdrawn by Plaintiff in
his Responses); and
• Count V - Taking without just compensation in
violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution pursuant to
Pennsylvania's Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa. C.S.A. §
101, et seq. (withdrawn by Plaintiff in his
Doc. No. 1, and Doc. Nos. 29, 31, and 33.
Court has original jurisdiction over Counts I and II of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and, though not
specifically alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint, Plaintiff
apparently seeks to invoke the Court's supplemental
jurisdiction over his state-law claims in Counts III, IV, and
V pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Pennsylvania State Police moved to dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint, doc. no. 12, and Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed that Defendant from the case. Doc. No. 17.
Now pending before the Court are Motions to Dismiss by the
remaining Defendants, ACPD, Pittsburgh PD, and Munhall PD.
Doc. No. 19, Doc. No. 25, and Doc. No.
22. All three remaining Defendants raise similar
arguments in their respective motions and Plaintiff filed
nearly identical responses to each. SeeDoc. No. 29,
Doc. No. 31, and Doc. No. 33. In his
Responses, Plaintiff withdraws his Inverse Condemnation and
Takings claims in Counts IV and V.
reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss Counts I and II
of Plaintiff's Complaint, because those claims are not
yet ripe for adjudication and will decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Count III of Plaintiff's
Complaint, stating a claim for negligence, as the Court has
dismissed all claims for which it possessed original
jurisdiction. Plaintiff's request for leave to amend his
Complaint is denied, as amendment could not cure the
deficiencies contained therein that show his federal claims
are not yet ripe.
a takings claim is ripe, plaintiffs should (subject to
certain exceptions) comply with two prudential requirements
set forth in the Supreme Court's decision in
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v.
Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172
(1985).” Knick v. Township of Scott, 862 F.3d
310, 323 (3d Cir. 2017). First, the “finality
rule” requires that a final decision regarding the
applicability of any government action to the property at
issue was made, and second, ...