IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARY LOUISE KELLY WOLFINGTON : CIVIL ACTION

and RICHARD I. WOLFINGTON :

 :

v. :

 :

DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY :

OF PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY, :

OFFICER THEODORE LOEBELL and :

OFFICER KENNETH MANNY : NO. 04-04655-JF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Fullam, Sr. J. May 1, 2006

Plaintiff Mary Louise Kelly Wolfington parked her car

in a no parking zone, under the Delaware River Bridge. When she

returned to her vehicle, it had been ticketed by Port Authority

police officers (the individual defendants) and a tow-truck had

been summoned to remove the car an impoundment lot. An

unpleasant confrontation ensued, culminating in Mrs. Wolfington’s

arrest and imprisonment, following a police pursuit. Mrs.

Wolfington has brought this action against the two police

officers and their employer, the Delaware River Port Authority,

asserting claims of constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, and state law violations. Discovery is now complete, and

the trial is imminent.

The defendant Port Authority has filed a motion for

summary judgment with respect to the § 1983 claims. The motion

will be granted. In order to establish a constitutional

Case 2:04-cv-04655-JF Document 67 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 4
2

violation under § 1983 against a governmental entity such as the

defendant Authority, plaintiffs must establish that the

constitutional violation is attributable to a policy or practice

officially sanctioned by that entity. In the present case,

however, there is a total lack of such evidence. It is

undisputed that the official written policies of the defendant

Authority do not condone the wrongful conduct alleged by

plaintiffs. There is ample evidence that the defendant police

officers were properly trained, and there is no evidence to the

contrary. The most that can be shown is that, on this particular

occasion, the officers acted in a manner inconsistent with the

Authority’s policies and procedures. But there is no evidence

that either officer had ever acted inappropriately on any other

occasion, or even that other officers employed by the Authority

had ever violated anyone’s constitutional rights previously.

Plaintiffs assert that, although the Authority

conducted an investigation into the incident after it occurred,

there is no evidence that either officer was subjected to

disciplinary action. Hence, it is argued, the defendant

Authority has taken no action to prevent a recurrence of such

conduct on the part of these officers. Even if that is true,

however, it does not support plaintiffs’ claim that their

constitutional rights were violated as a result of an official

policy or practice of the Authority.

Case 2:04-cv-04655-JF Document 67 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 4
3

For all of these reasons, plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims

against the defendant Authority must be dismissed. This does

not, of course, affect plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against the

individual defendants, nor their state-law claims against the

Authority as well as the individual defendants.

An Order follows.

Case 2:04-cv-04655-JF Document 67 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 4
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARY LOUISE KELLY WOLFINGTON : CIVIL ACTION

and RICHARD I. WOLFINGTON :

 :

v. :

 :

DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY :

OF PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY, :

OFFICER THEODORE LOEBELL and :

OFFICER KENNETH MANNY : NO. 04-04655-JF

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1st day of May 2006, upon consideration

of the motion of defendant Delaware River Port Authority for

summary judgment, and plaintiffs’ response, IT IS ORDERED:

That the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and

Counts I and XI of plaintiffs’ complaint are DISMISSED with

prejudice, as to the defendant Delaware River Port Authority.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John P. Fullam 

John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

Case 2:04-cv-04655-JF Document 67 Filed 05/01/06 Page 4 of 4