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.

Bishop v. Upper Darby Police Department

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

May 24, 2018

JASON BISHOP, Plaintiff,
v.
UPPER DARBY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al. Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM

          LYNNE A. SITARSKI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Presently before this Court is a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff Jason Bishop's Second Amended Complaint, filed on behalf of Defendants Upper Darby Police Department, Upper Darby Township, Upper Darby Board of Supervisors, Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood, and four individually named Upper Darby police officers. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 48). Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (Resp., ECF No. 50). On May 22, 2018, the parties appeared for oral argument on the motion. Based on parties' positions as outlined in their written submissions and presented at oral argument before the Court, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

         I. FACTS ALLEGED IN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

         The Second Amended Complaint alleges the following facts, which are assumed to be true for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss.

         On May 16, 2015, Plaintiff Jason Bishop, (“Plaintiff”), was driving on Clinton Road in Upper Darby when he noticed several parked Upper Darby police vehicles. (2nd Amend. Compl., ¶16, ECF No. 47). The parked police cars blocked Plaintiff's ability to continue driving on Clinton Road. (Id.). Defendant Upper Darby Police Officers Dockery, Garay, Gieder, and Donohue were on the scene, having responded to a landlord-tenant dispute between persons who are not parties to this action. (Id. at ¶ 17). Plaintiff remained in his vehicle, but asked the officers if the police vehicles could be moved to allow traffic to pass. (Id. at ¶ 18). Officer Dockery responded to Plaintiff's request by demanding Plaintiff produce photo identification. (Id. at ¶ 19). When Plaintiff questioned Officer Dockery, Dockery threatened to place him under arrest. (Id. at ¶ 20). Plaintiff calmly reiterated his request for the police cars to be moved in order to allow traffic to exit Clinton Road. (Id. at ¶ 22). At that point, one of the officers grabbed Plaintiff and placed him in handcuffs, causing pain in his upper extremity, shoulder, arm and hand. (Id. at ¶¶ 23-24). Plaintiff claims that the other three officers on scene witnessed the altercation, and ignored his pleas for medical attention. (Id. at ¶¶ 25-26). He also alleges that the police officers refused to loosen his handcuffs, which he claims were too tight. (Id.). Plaintiff claims he was thrown into the back of a police vehicle, transported to the Upper Darby Police Department, and placed in a holding cell. (Id. at ¶ 27). Plaintiff was charged with disorderly conduct, and was released the same day, May 16, 2015. (Id. at ¶ 29). The charges filed against him on that date ultimately were dismissed. (Id. at ¶ 28).

         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiff commenced this action, pro se, by filing a Complaint against the Upper Darby Police Department and Upper Darby Police Officers Michael T. Dockery, Jr., Louis Garay, Jr., Brian Gieder, and Kevin Donohue. (Compl., ECF No. 3). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, adding Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood, Upper Darby Township, and the Upper Darby Board of Supervisors. (Amend. Compl. ECF No. 17). Subsequently, court-appointed counsel entered an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff, and filed a Second Amended Complaint.[1] (Orders, ECF Nos. 22, 24, 26; 2nd Amend. Compl., ECF No. 47).

         The Second Amended Complaint contains the following ten counts:

(1) 14th Amendment due process claim against the individual defendants and the Upper Darby Police Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, (Count I);
(2) 4th and 14th Amendment claims against the individual defendants and the Upper Darby Police Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, (Count II);
(3) 4th Amendment False Arrest claim against the individual defendants and the Upper Darby Police Department pursuant to § 1983, (Count III);
(4) False arrest claim based on Pennsylvania law against the individual defendants and the Upper Darby Police Department, (Count IV);
(5) Malicious Prosecution claim against the individual defendants and the Upper Darby Police Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, (Count V);
(6) Malicious Prosecution claim based on Pennsylvania law against the individual defendants and the Upper Darby Police Department, (Count VI);
(7) Assault and Battery claim against defendant Dockery based on Pennsylvania law, (Count VII);
(8) False Imprisonment claim based on Pennsylvania law against the individual defendants and the Upper Darby Police ...

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.