Case: 2:19-cv-799 As of: 06/16/2020 09:08 PM EDT 1 of 6
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:19−cv−00799−PD

STANDARD

PITNEY v. CITY OF CHESTER et al Assigned to: HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND Demand: $500,000 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/25/2019 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

KENARD PITNEY INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS

represented by ALAN FELDMAN FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER & TANNE 1845 WALNUT STREET 21ST FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−567−8300 Email: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ANDREW KEVIN MITNICK FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK DODIG, LLP 1845 WALNUT STREET 21ST FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−567−8300 Fax: 215−567−8333 Email: amitnick@feldmanshepherd.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EDWARD S. GOLDIS FELDMAN, SHEPHERD, WOHLGELERNTER & TANNER 1845 WALNUT STREET 21ST FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−567−8300 Fax: 215−567−8333 Email: egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PATRICK G. GECKLE LAW OFFICES PATRICK G. GECKLE LLC 1515 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1200 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−735−3326 Email: pgeckle@pgglaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant CITY OF CHESTER

represented by DAVID J. MACMAIN THE MACMAIN LAW GROUP LLC 433 W. MARKET STREET SUITE 200 WEST CHESTER, PA 19382 484−318−7704

Case: 2:19-cv-799 As of: 06/16/2020 09:08 PM EDT 2 of 6

Defendant
POLICE OFFICER WILLIAM J. MURPHY, III BADGE NUMBER 841 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF CHESTER TERMINATED: 08/01/2019
Defendant
POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 1 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF CHESTER
Defendant
POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 2 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF CHESTER

Fax: 484−328−3996 Email: dmacmain@macmainlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BRIAN H. LEINHAUSER MacMain, Connell & Leinhauser, LLC 433 W. Market Street Suite 200 West Chester, PA 19382 484−318−7106 Fax: 4843283996 Email: bleinhauser@macmainlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NICHOLAS A. CUMMINS BENNETT BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG, LLP 1601 MARKET ST., 16TH FL PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−561−4300 Fax: 215−561−6661 Email: cummins@bbs−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by NICHOLAS A. CUMMINS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/01/2019

Date Filed 02/25/2019
02/25/2019 02/25/2019 04/17/2019

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against CITY OF CHESTER, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, WILLIAM J. MURPHY, III ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0313−13371963.), filed by KENARD PITNEY. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Designation Form, # 3 Case Management Track Form)(GECKLE, PATRICK) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
Summons Issued as to CITY OF CHESTER, WILLIAM J. MURPHY, III. Two Forwarded To: Counsel on 2/25/19 (jwl, ) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by KENARD PITNEY. (jwl, ) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by KENARD PITNEY. CITY OF CHESTER waiver sent on 3/1/2019, answer due 4/30/2019; WILLIAM J. MURPHY, III waiver sent on 3/1/2019, answer due 4/30/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service for City of Chester, # 2 Certificate of Service for William J. Murphy)(GECKLE, PATRICK) (Entered: 04/17/2019)

Case: 2:19-cv-799 As of: 06/16/2020 09:08 PM EDT 3 of 6

04/18/2019 04/30/2019 05/01/2019 05/01/2019
05/03/2019 05/03/2019 08/01/2019 08/09/2019 08/12/2019
10/03/2019 10/03/2019 10/03/2019 10/11/2019 10/11/2019

3 NOTICE of Appearance by NICHOLAS A. CUMMINS on behalf of CITY OF CHESTER, WILLIAM J. MURPHY, III with Jury Demand(CUMMINS, NICHOLAS) (Entered: 04/18/2019)
4 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by CITY OF CHESTER, WILLIAM J. MURPHY, III.(CUMMINS, NICHOLAS) (Entered: 04/30/2019)
5 NOTICE of Hearing: A RULE 16 PRETRIAL PHONE CONFERENCE IS SET FOR 5/3/2019 AT 9:15 AM BEFORE HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY.(mr, ) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
6 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MONELL CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF CHESTER IS LIMITED ONLY TO THE ALLEGED POLICIES AND CUSTOMS OF THE CITY OF CHESTER WITH RESPECT TO THE STRIP SEARCHING OF DETAINEEDS. ALL OTHER GROUNDS FOR LIABILITY AGAINST THE CITY OF CHESTER ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVIE DAMAGES AGAINST THE CITY OF CHESTER IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND PENNSYLVANIA STATE LAW AGAINST ALL INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 5/1/2019. 5/1/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
7 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY Telephone Conference held on 5/3/2019 (sg, ) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
8 SCHEDULING ORDER: DISCOVERY DUE BY 9/2/2019. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DUE BY 9/16/2019. ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 5/3/2019. 5/6/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
9 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT ALL CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT, POLICE OFFICER WILLIAM J. MURPHY, III ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 7/31/2019. 8/1/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
10 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions filed by KENARD PITNEY.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(GECKLE, PATRICK) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
11 ORDERED THAT THE SCHEDULING ORDER IS AMENDED TO PROVIDE AS FOLLOWS, ALL DISCOVERY DUE BY 10/16/2019., DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DUE BY 10/30/2019. ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 8/12/2019. 8/13/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by EDWARD S. GOLDIS on behalf of KENARD PITNEY (GOLDIS, EDWARD) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by ALAN FELDMAN on behalf of KENARD PITNEY (FELDMAN, ALAN) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
14 MOTION to Amend/Correct FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THECOMPLAINT filed by KENARD PITNEY.Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A" Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(GECKLE, PATRICK) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
15 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION to Amend/Correct FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THECOMPLAINT filed by CITY OF CHESTER.Certificate of Service.(CUMMINS, NICHOLAS) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
16 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY TO HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND FOR ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. SIGNED BY CLERK OF COURT KATE BARKMAN, CLERK OF COURT ON 10/11/2019. 10/15/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(nd, ) (Entered: 10/15/2019)

Case: 2:19-cv-799 As of: 06/16/2020 09:08 PM EDT 4 of 6

10/11/2019
10/15/2019 10/30/2019 10/31/2019 11/01/2019 11/01/2019
11/05/2019 11/05/2019
11/07/2019 11/07/2019
11/20/2019
11/22/2019 11/25/2019 11/25/2019

17 ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. THE CITY OF CHESTER SHALL FILE A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO AMEND NOT LATER THAN 10/31/2019. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 10/11/2019.10/15/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 10/15/2019)
18 STANDING ORDER OUTLINED HEREIN.SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 10/15/2019. 10/15/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(rt) (Entered: 10/15/2019)
19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CITY OF CHESTER.Brief, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−K, # 2 Exhibit L part 1, # 3 Exhibit L part 2, # 4 Exhibit L part 3, # 5 Exhibit M−N)(CUMMINS, NICHOLAS) (Entered: 10/30/2019)
20 RESPONSE in Opposition re 14 MOTION to Amend/Correct FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THECOMPLAINT filed by CITY OF CHESTER. (CUMMINS, NICHOLAS) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
21 MOTION for Leave to File Brief in Excess of Page Limit filed by CITY OF CHESTER.Certificate of Service.(CUMMINS, NICHOLAS) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
22 ORDER UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT (DOC. NO. 21 ), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION IS GRANTED.SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 11/1/2019. 11/1/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(rt) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
23 CORRESPONDENCE FROM ALAN M. FELDMAN, ESQ., DATED 11/5/2019.(rt) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
24 ORDER UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PARTIES' JOINT LETTER REQUEST (DOC. NO. 23 ), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT, MY DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND (DOC. NO. 14 ) HIS COMPLAINT IS DEFERRED PENDING MY DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 19 ).SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 11/5/2019. 11/5/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(rt) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
25 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by KENARD PITNEY.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(GECKLE, PATRICK) (Entered: 11/07/2019)
26 ORDER UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DOC. NO. 25 ) TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 19 ), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF SHALL RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY NOVEMBER 20, 2019 AT 5:00 P.M.SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 11/7/2019. 11/7/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(rt) (Entered: 11/07/2019)
27 RESPONSE to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by KENARD PITNEY. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Certificate of Service)(GECKLE, PATRICK) Modified on 11/21/2019 (lisad, ). (Entered: 11/20/2019)
28 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 (surveillance video) for Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Summary Judgment. (Disk attached in envelope) (mbh, ) (Entered: 11/25/2019)
29 LETTER REQUEST FROM ALAN M. FELDMAN, ESQ., DATED 11/22/2019.SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 11/25/2019. 11/25/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(rt) (Entered: 11/25/2019)
30 ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE ITS CORRECTED BRIEF FORTHWITH. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 11/25/2019. 11/26/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES

Case: 2:19-cv-799 As of: 06/16/2020 09:08 PM EDT 5 of 6

11/26/2019
11/27/2019 05/20/2020 05/20/2020
05/22/2020 05/27/2020
05/27/2020 06/01/2020 06/03/2020 06/03/2020 06/04/2020 06/04/2020 06/08/2020 06/09/2020

E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 11/26/2019)
31 Amended RESPONSE to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by KENARD PITNEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit)(FELDMAN, ALAN) Modified on 11/27/2019 (lisad, ). (Entered: 11/26/2019)
32 REPLY Brief in Support re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CITY OF CHESTER. Certificate of Service. (CUMMINS, NICHOLAS) Modified on 12/2/2019 (lisad, ). (Entered: 11/27/2019)
33 MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/20/2020. 5/21/2020 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
34 ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN 5/28/2020. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/20/2020. 5/21/2020 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
35 CORRESPONDENCE FROM NICHOLAS A. CUMMINS, DATED MAY 22, 2020, by CITY OF CHESTER (rt) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
36 ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL DOCKET PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT. DEFENDANTS SHALL MOVE, ANSWER, OR OTHERWISE REPLY BY 6/9/2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTIONS ARE DUE 8/7/2020. A HEARING ON CLASS CERTIFICATION WILL BE HELD ON FRIDAY, 8/28/2020 AT 1 PM IN COURTROOM 14A. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/27/2020.5/27/2020 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/27/2020)
37 AMENDED COMPLAINT against CITY OF CHESTER, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, filed by KENARD PITNEY.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/27/2020)
38 NOTICE of Appearance by ANDREW KEVIN MITNICK on behalf of KENARD PITNEY with Certificate of Service(MITNICK, ANDREW) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
39 MOTION to Amend/Correct 34 Order (Memorandum and/or Opinion),, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, to Certify for Appeal filed by CITY OF CHESTER.Brief, Certificate of Service.(CUMMINS, NICHOLAS) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
40 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF SHALL RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND ORDER TO CERTIFY FOR APPEAL BY 6/8/20 AT 12:00 P.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 6/3/20. 6/4/20 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(JL ) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
41 NOTICE of Appearance by DAVID J. MACMAIN on behalf of CITY OF CHESTER with Certificate of Service(MACMAIN, DAVID) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
42 NOTICE of Appearance by BRIAN H. LEINHAUSER on behalf of CITY OF CHESTER with Certificate of Service(LEINHAUSER, BRIAN) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
43 RESPONSE in Opposition re 39 MOTION to Amend/Correct 34 Order (Memorandum and/or Opinion),, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, to Certify for Appeal filed by KENARD PITNEY. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(FELDMAN, ALAN) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
44 STIPULATION TO PARTIAL DISMISSAL by CITY OF CHESTER, KENARD PITNEY. (sg, ) (Entered: 06/09/2020)

Case: 2:19-cv-799 As of: 06/16/2020 09:08 PM EDT 6 of 6

06/09/2020 06/09/2020 06/09/2020

45 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND ORDER TO CERTIFY APPEAL (DOC. 39 ) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 6/9/2020.6/9/2020 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
46 ORDERED THAT THE PARTIES' PARTIAL STIPULATION TO DISMISS (DOC. 44 ) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 6/9/2020. 6/9/2020 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
47 ANSWER to 37 Amended Complaint by CITY OF CHESTER.(CUMMINS, NICHOLAS) (Entered: 06/09/2020)

 
 Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 2 of 11

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 3 of 11

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 4 of 11

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 5 of 11

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 6 of 11

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 7 of 11

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 8 of 11

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 9 of 11

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 10 of 11

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 11 of 11

 
 Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 3 Filed 04/18/19 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KENARD PITNEY v.
CITY OF CHESTER And POLICE OFFICER WILLIAM J. MURPHY, III BADGE NUMBER 841 And POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 1 And POLICE OFFICE JOHN DOE 2

: CIVIL ACTION – LAW : : NO. 2:19-cv-00799-RK : : : : :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of defendants, City of Chester and
Officer William J. Murphy III, on whose behalf trial by jury of twelve (12) is hereby demanded.

Date: April 18, 2019

BENNETT, BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLC
/s/ Nicholas A. Cummins By:
Nicholas A. Cummins Attorney I.D. No. 1601 Market Street, 16th Fl Philadelphia, PA 19103 Email: cummins@bbs-law.com Attorney for Defendants City of Chester and Officer William J. Murphy III

 
 Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVNIA

KENARD PITNEY, Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals
v.
CITY OF CHESTER, et al.

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

:

:

:

NO. 19-799

:

:

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff Kenard Pitney, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, for his Complaint herein, alleges the following on information and belief, except as to the allegations concerning his individual claim which are asserted upon personal knowledge:
INTRODUCTION 1. This is a class action brought to address the deprivation by the City of Chester (“defendant”) of rights secured to Kenard Pitney (“plaintiff”) and the proposed Class by the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Since 1995, the City of Chester has enforced an illegal, unlawful policy requiring that all individuals placed in a holding cell must be subjected to an illegal, humiliating, degrading strip search, without any consideration of the nature of the crime, the circumstances of the arrest, and the particular characteristics of the arrestee. These strip searches, which include a search of the arrestees’ genitalia, are conducted despite the lack of any suspicion that the arrestee may be carrying contraband. These policies are derived from the written procedures of the City of Chester and/or the City of Chester Police Department. They also stem from the defendant’s deliberate indifference to the rights of persons detained by the defendant.

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 16
2. The policy of the City of Chester to force all individuals who are to be placed in a holding cell to be subjected to a humiliating strip search, including a search of the genitalia, despite the fact that those individuals may not be held with any other arrestees and are often being held for only a matter of minutes while their paperwork is processed. Critically, these individuals are stripped searched even through there is no suspicion that they might be carrying contraband and without any consideration of the nature of the crime charged, the circumstances of the arrest or the particular characteristics of the arrestee. In short, every citizen who is placed in a holding cell, even if they are to be held alone without any contact with any other detainees and despite the fact that they may be arrested for the most minor of offenses, is subjected to a humiliating strip search including the inspection of their genitalia .
3. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of individuals who were not only strip searched after being arrested for minor offenses, but who were strip searched either (a) prior to an appearance before a judge or judicial officer with authority to release the detainee and/or (b) without being given a reasonable opportunity to post bail. These searches were conducted despite the fact that the individuals were not going to be placed in the general population at a correctional facility. Blanket searches conducted in this fashion constitute a violation of the Constitutional rights of plaintiff and the class members he seeks to represent. Specifically, these actions - - which were carried out pursuant to defendant’s policy - - were taken against the plaintiff in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States’ Constitution.
4. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages individually and for each member of the proposed Class who have suffered from the wrongful actions of the defendant described herein, a declaration that defendant’s policies are unconstitutional and/or unlawful, and an injunction
2

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 3 of 16
precluding defendant from continuing to violate the rights of the persons detained and/or placed in its custody.
JURISDICTION 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the constitutionality of the policies of a local government. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s pendant state law claims under 42 U.S.C. §1367(a) inasmuch as plaintiff‘s state law claims are so related to plaintiff’s federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims. 6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s and the class’ claims occurred within this judicial district.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Kenard Pitney is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and at all times relevant to this action was present in the City of Chester, Pennsylvania. 8. Defendant, City of Chester, is a municipality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and owns, operates, manages, directs and controls the Chester Police Department. At all times relevant hereto, the City of Chester, as well as its agents, servants and employees, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Chester Police Department, as well as for the appointment, training,
3

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 4 of 16
supervision and conduct of all Chester Police Department personnel. In addition, at all relevant
times, the City of Chester was responsible for enforcing the rules of the City of Chester and/or
the Chester Police Department and for ensuring the personnel employed by the City of Chester
and the Chester Police Department obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
9. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and a Class of similarly situated individuals who were
arrested for misdemeanors or other minor violations and who were unlawfully and
unconstitutionally strip-searched upon being detained and/or placed into custody by defendant.
10. Specifically, the Class that plaintiff seeks to represent with regard to claims
brought pursuant to violations of rights protected by the United States Constitution, the
Pennsylvania Constitution and other applicable laws is defined as follows:
All persons who have been (1) detained by and/or placed in the custody of the Chester Police Department or any facility under the authority of the City of Chester (2) as a result of being arrested and/or charged with non-indictable offenses such as: civil enforcement offenses, i.e., child support enforcement arrears, traffic offenses, petty disorderly offenses, disorderly persons offenses, misdemeanors, contempt proceedings, failure to pay financial fines, penalties and/or costs in like matters as set forth above; and/or failure to appear at any court proceedings on like matters as set forth above; and (3) who were strip-searched upon their entry into detainment and/or custody and/or were stripsearched prior to an appearance before a judge or judicial officer who had the authority to release the person as referred to above from detainment and/or custody and/or (4) persons who appeared before a judge or judicial officer in the matters referred to above who were not released from detainment and/or custody and who were strip-searched as set forth above, and (5) the strip-search was conducted and/or performed according to the City of Chester’s blanket strip search policy, that is, without reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause based on objective and articulable facts that
4

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 5 of 16
the aforesaid person or persons possessed controlled substances, weapons and/or other contraband. The class includes persons who were strip searched on or after March 1, 1995 and extends to the date on which the City of Chester and the Chester Police Department are enjoined and/or cease to strip-search the class of persons referred to above. 11. This Amended Complaint relates back to the original filing as it “asserts a claim . . . that arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set out . . . in the original pleading” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). No new facts need to be pled from the Complaint as filed. 12. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements for maintaining a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). 13. The members of the Class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon information and belief there have been thousands of citizens arrested for non-felony and/or minor offenses who were placed into the custody of the City of Chester - - most, if not all, of whom are members of the proposed Class. Upon information and belief, the size of the proposed Class totals thousands of individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on multiple occasions. 14. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of Class members and the fact that the Class members are likely disbursed over a large geographical area, with some members presently residing outside of Pennsylvania and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon information and belief, many members of the Class are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty pursuing their rights individually. 15. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class that predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the Class. The
5

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 6 of 16
predominate common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, questions as to whether the defendant’s written and/or de facto policies and practices of strip-searching individuals who are charged with non-indictable charges or minor violations as defined in paragraph 10 when transferred to and/or placed into detention and/or custody of the City of Chester, were illegal and/or in violation of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, Pennsylvania law and/or other applicable law, and whether such written and/or de facto policy and practices existed during the Class period.
16. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class: Plaintiff and all members of the Class have sustained damages arising out of defendant’s course of conduct. The harms suffered by plaintiff are typical of the harms suffered by the Class.
17. The representative plaintiff has the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.
18. The representative plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in the prosecution of class actions and civil rights litigation. Plaintiff’s counsel has the resources, expertise, and experience to successfully prosecute this action against the City of Chester. No conflicts exist between plaintiff and members of the Class, or between counsel and members of the Class.
19. This action seeks, in part, declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), in that all members of the proposed Class were subjected to the same policies and acts of deliberate indifference. In short, defendant City of Chester acted on grounds generally applicable to all members of the Class.
6

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 7 of 16
20. In addition to certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, plaintiff seeks certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3).
21. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all individual members of the Class is impracticable given the large number of members of the Class and the fact that they are disbursed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expenses and burden of individual litigation will make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the Class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this District presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the Class.
22. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the defendant’s flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals, even though upon information and belief the defendant has maintained its illegal practices for many years.
23. As an alternative to certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), plaintiff also seeks partial certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(4).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Facts Applicable To The Class Generally 24. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits government agencies and state officials, such as the defendant in this action and those it supervises, from performing strip searches of arrestees who have been charged with misdemeanors or other minor
7

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 8 of 16
crimes unless there is a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing a weapon, drugs, or other contraband.
25. The City of Chester has instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter its custody and/or are detained by the defendant, regardless of the nature of the individual’s charged crime and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe the individual was concealing a weapon, drugs or other contraband.
26. The City of Chester knows that it may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting strip searches without the presence of particularized, reasonable suspicion. This Court and the Federal Courts of Appeal have stated repeatedly that state officials may not strip search individuals charged with misdemeanors or other minor violations in the absence of particularized, reasonable suspicion.
27. The defendant’s written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip searches of all misdemeanor and minor violation arrestees has been promulgated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law. A reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search may only emanate from particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, a particular characteristic of the arrestee, and/or the circumstances of the arrest.
28. The City of Chester has promulgated, implemented, enforced and/or failed to rectify a written and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of strip searching all individuals placed into custody and/or detained by the defendant without any reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort, that such individuals were concealing a weapon, drugs or other contraband. This written and/or de facto policy made the strip searching of pre-trial detainees routine; neither
8

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 9 of 16
the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip searches. The written and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of strip searching applied to all individuals “charged by the Chester Police, or any other law enforcement agency with a violation of law which will require that person to be placed in a locked cell or having contact with others in custody” with the limited exception of those transported to Chester Lockup “from another confinement facility who has remained under guard for the entire period of transport.”
29. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each member of the Class, including the named plaintiff, was the victim of a routine strip search upon being placed into custody and/or detained by the defendant. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or establishment of reasonable suspicion to support a strip search, and in fact, such searches were not supported by such a reasonable suspicion. Strip searches were and are conducted for individuals arrested for, among other innocuous offenses, driving while intoxicated, harassment and trespassing.
30. As a direct and proximate result of unlawful strip searches conducted pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches - - that is, each member of the Class, including the named plaintiff - - has suffered and will suffer psychological harm, pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable To The Named Plaintiff 31. Plaintiff Kenard Pitney’s experiences are representative and corroborative of what members of the Class were subjected to. 32. As a detainee of the defendant, it is plaintiff Kenard Pitney’s Constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
9

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 10 of 16
33. On or about May 18, 2018, plaintiff visited the Harrah’s Casino located in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
34. At approximately 9:30 p.m., plaintiff exited the casino and went to the valet in the casino parking lot. Plaintiff instructed the valet that he wanted to retrieve some items that he left in the car.
35. Plaintiff then walked over to where his vehicle was parked and waited for the valet to arrive with his keys so that plaintiff could retrieve his items.
36. After waiting for a few minutes, a security guard from Harrah’s approached the plaintiff and advised him that the valet was not going to give him the keys to his vehicle as the valet believed it would be best for plaintiff to either call a cab or Uber, or make other arrangements to get home.
37. Plaintiff advised the security guard that he wished to call a friend to drive him home. However, he once again told the security guard that he needed to get belongings out of his vehicle. The security guard again refused to unlock plaintiff’s vehicle door. Plaintiff then asked for a supervisor.
38. Within a few minutes, a supervisor did arrive on the scene and the supervisor also refused plaintiff’s request to gain entry to his vehicle. Plaintiff then asked the supervisor to call the police.
39. In approximately five minutes, officers from the Chester Police Department arrived on the scene at which time plaintiff was talking on his cell phone. When plaintiff requested a few more minutes to speak with his fiancé to arrange a ride home the officers knocked plaintiff’s phone out of his hand and placed plaintiff in handcuffs before taking him to the City of Chester police station, where he was handcuffed to a bench.
10

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 11 of 16
40. Eventually, plaintiff was placed into a holding cell by himself and strip searched by one of defendant’s officers. During the course of the strip search, plaintiff was required to remove his clothes, and hold up his genitals so that the officer could observe the same.
41. The strip search was done in public and, upon information and belief, a female officer may have been allowed to observe the strip search through closed-circuit television.
42. After approximately one and half hours at the police station, plaintiff was released after being given a summons for public intoxication.
43. On or about July 19, 2018, the summons was dismissed. 44. At no time did defendant or its officers have reasonable cause to believe that plaintiff was concealing a weapon, drugs or other contraband, but nevertheless strip-searched plaintiff in conformity with its unconstitutional policy.
COUNT ONE Violation Of The United States And Pennsylvania Constitutions Under The Color
Of State Law–Unreasonable Searches 45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 46. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prevents officers from conducting strip searches of individuals arrested for misdemeanors or other minor violations absent some particularized suspicion that the individual in question possesses either weapons, drugs or other contraband. 47. The actions of defendant detailed above violated plaintiff’s and the Class’ rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for defendant
11

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 12 of 16
to strip search plaintiff and Class members based merely on their arrest for misdemeanor or other minor criminal charges.
48. These unlawful strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the City of Chester and/or the Chester Police Department. As such, the City of Chester is directly liable for the damages of the named plaintiff and the members of the Class.
49. Upon information and belief, the City of Chester is responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized by the Chester Police Department in detaining or arresting individuals, and is responsible for the implementation of the strip-search policy and the unlawful practices described in this Complaint. As such, the defendant is responsible for the damages of the named plaintiff and members of the Class.
50. The defendant knew that its strip search policy, practice or custom was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intention to deprive plaintiff and members of the class of their Constitutional rights.
51. This conduct of the City of Chester represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that its actions were undertaken under the color of state law.
52. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, plaintiff and members of the proposed Class have been irreparably injured and seek damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief set out in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT TWO Supplemental State Law Claims 53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
12

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 13 of 16
54. The acts of the defendant constitute an illegal search and seizure and intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for which this Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate these claims.
55. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts as described above, plaintiffs have been irreparably injured and seek damages, as well as the declaratory and injunctive relief set out in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT THREE Demand For Declaratory Judgment 56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 57. The policy, custom and/or practice of the City of Chester is clearly unconstitutional in that it is directing or conducting the strip search of all individuals taken into custody and/or detained without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question possess either weapons, drugs or other contraband. 58. Plaintiff and the members of the Class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment declaring the strip search policy of the City of Chester to be unconstitutional.
COUNT FOUR Demand For Preliminary And Permanent Injunction 59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
13

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 14 of 16
60. The policy, custom and practice of the City of Chester is clearly unconstitutional in that it is directing or conducting the strip search of all individuals taken into custody and/or detained without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question possess either weapons, drugs or other contraband.
61. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the named plaintiff and other members of the Class.
62. The continuing pattern of unlawfully strip-searching individuals charged with minor crimes will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the Class, for which an adequate remedy does not exist at law.
63. Plaintiff demands that the City of Chester immediately desist from strip searching individuals placed into custody and/or detained by the defendant absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question possess either weapons, drugs or other contraband, and seeks both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 64. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiff Kenard Pitney, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated, requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment against defendant City of Chester and grant them the following relief:
(a) Enter or certify this action as a Class Action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, with plaintiff as the Class representative;
14

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 15 of 16
(b) A judgment against the defendant on plaintiff’s causes of actions detailed herein, awarding compensatory damages to the named plaintiff and each member of the proposed Class in an amount to be determined by a jury and/or the Court on both an individual and Classwide basis;
(c) A judgment in favor of plaintiff and each member of the proposed Class judgment against the defendant for punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by a jury and/or the Court on both an individual and Class-wide basis;
(d) A judgment in favor of plaintiff and each member of the proposed Class for prejudgment interest;
(e) Declaratory and injunctive relief to establish appropriate policies and procedures for when strip-searches may be lawfully carried out;
(f) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendant from continuing to strip search individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes absent particularized, reasonable suspicion that the arrestee/detainee subjected to the search is concealing weapons, drugs or other contraband;
(g) A monetary award for attorney’s fees and costs of this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 23; and
(h) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
15

Case 2:19-cv-00799-PD Document 37 Filed 05/27/20 Page 16 of 16