United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
CHARLES J. MELTON, Plaintiff,
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY POLICE STATION and BARTON ALLIED SECURITY, Defendants.
se Plaintiff Charles Melton filed suit against Temple
University Police Station (“Temple”) and
Universal Protection Service d/b/a Allied Universal Security
Services (“Allied”), and with leave of Court,
filed his First Amended Complaint, alleging numerous
violations of state and federal law based on Defendants'
alleged misconduct on two separate occasions at Temple
University. The first incident occurred in 2016, when
Plaintiff was at the Temple University School of Dentistry to
pick up a dental bill. Plaintiff alleges that an Allied
security officer improperly called Temple police, and
Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs as he and his property were
searched. The second incident occurred in 2018 at the Temple
University library, where Temple police allegedly removed
Plaintiff from the library and accosted him.
moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, and the Court
granted their motions in part, dismissing all claims against
both Defendants without prejudice and with leave to amend,
except one false imprisonment claim under Pennsylvania state
law against Temple.As to Allied, all claims were dismissed
because Plaintiff failed to allege any facts supporting a
plausible cause of action against it. As to Temple, all federal
constitutional claims were dismissed because Plaintiff failed
to allege facts supporting the existence of a policy or
custom of violating federal law under
then filed the operative Second Amended Complaint, which
again raises federal constitutional claims under the Fourth,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Pennsylvania
state law claims,  and which largely mirrors the allegations
of the First Amended Complaint. Defendants have now moved to
dismiss this Complaint. The motions will be granted, as
Plaintiff has failed to cure the shortcomings highlighted by
this Court in addressing his First Amended
Allied, Plaintiff does not allege facts supporting a
plausible § 1983 claim, as he again fails to allege any
facts that constitute a violation of law by Allied or its
employees. Plaintiff only states that an Allied security
guard was noticeably agitated, that she did not disclose her
badge number, and that she subsequently called Temple police,
and these allegations do not constitute a violation of any
Temple, Plaintiff again fails to allege any facts that
support the existence of an official policy or custom,
implemented or executed by Temple, that caused his alleged
constitutional injuries. As previously noted by this Court,
Plaintiff alleges two instances of alleged misconduct by
Temple police, occurring several years apart, and fails to
provide facts supporting the existence of a policy or
custom. Although Plaintiff now contends that
Temple had “a pattern and policy in which officers of
the Temple Police department unlawfully arrest[ed],
search[ed], and detained” him, such conclusory
statements, unsupported by any factual allegations, are
insufficient to allege a policy or custom.
consideration of the facts presented by Plaintiff in his
various complaints, and as Plaintiff has already been
afforded one opportunity to amend, the Court finds that
further leave to amend would be futile. Thus,
Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against both Temple and
Allied are dismissed with prejudice. Furthermore, as all
federal claims for which the Court has original jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) will be dismissed with
prejudice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims,
which will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's
ability to file them in state court.
 First Am. Compl., [Doc. No.
 Order [Doc. No. 27].
 Order [Doc. No. 27] at 6
(“Plaintiff has not alleged any conduct … that
would give rise to a cause of action against Allied.
Plaintiff seeks relief for violations of the Fourth
Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and
seizures; however, Plaintiff does not allege that anyone from
Allied prevented him from leaving or touched him or his
 Id. at 5.
 Plaintiff alleges causes of action for
false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and
negligent hiring, retention and supervision under the ...