1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEVEN KACHMAR, ESQUIRE, : Case No.: 4:05cv413

:

Plaintiff : 

: Judge Jones

v : 

:

CITY OF POTTSVILLE, et al., :

:

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

October 13, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (doc. 15) filed by Defendants City

of Pottsville and Dennis Wiederhold on June 1, 2005. We also have before us a

Motion to Dismiss filed by the remaining Defendant Pottsville Hospital and Warne

Clinic (doc. 25) on July 28, 2005.

For the reasons that follow, we will grant both Motions to Dismiss and close

the file on this case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on February 25, 2005. (See

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 24
2

Rec. Doc. 1, ¶ 1). In accordance with our April 18, 2005 Order, on May 18, 2005,

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the case sub judice in which he added the

Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic as an additional named Defendant. 

On June 1, 2005, Defendants City of Pottsville and Dennis Wiederhold filed

a Motion to Dismiss, which has been briefed by the parties. On July 28, 2005,

Defendant Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic also filed a Motion to Dismiss,

which has been fully briefed. The Motions are therefore ripe for disposition. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept the veracity of a

plaintiff's allegations. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see also

White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 106 (3d Cir. 1990). In Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d

63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996), our Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit added that in

considering a motion to dismiss based on a failure to state a claim argument, a

court should "not inquire whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, only

whether they are entitled to offer evidence to support their claims." Furthermore,

"a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears

beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim

which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957);

see also District Council 47 v. Bradley, 795 F.2d 310 (3d Cir. 1986). 

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 24
3

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

As we explained in our April 18, 2005 Order, Plaintiff Steven Kachmar

(“Plaintiff” or “Kachmar”), an attorney who practices in Schuylkill,

Northumberland, Carbon, and Upper Berks Counties, alleges that on February 22,

2005, he was driving alone near the Schuylkill County Courthouse to represent

clients at a Meeting of Creditors scheduled pursuant to § 341 of the Bankruptcy

Code before the appointed Trustee William G. Schwab. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2,

7). Plaintiff asserts that as he was approaching Pottsville, he became disoriented

while driving “for reasons not known to him and as he drove through the City

streets he became dazed and not capable of controlling his physical function which

would have allowed him to stop his vehicle.” Id. ¶ 8. “Plaintiff was going in and

out of consciousness during this time.” Id. ¶ 9. 

Moreover, Plaintiff states that he is a kidney transplant recipient since 2003

and is required to take certain medication to preserve the integrity of the kidney’s

function. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff wears a medical alert bracelet on his left wrist, which

advises others that he is a transplant patient and it contains his physician’s contact

information. Id. ¶ 20. 

Plaintiff further alleges that on February 22, 2005, as he approached the

Schuylkill County Courthouse, he parked his vehicle on Second Street with the

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 3 of 24
4

intention of taking his briefcase, containing client files, into the Courthouse;

however, as he exited his vehicle, Defendant Dennis Wiederhold (“Officer

Wiederhold”), a police officer for the Pottsville Police Department, approached

Plaintiff and asked for his driver’s license, insurance information, and vehicle

registration. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. Plaintiff states that during the above-referenced period

of time when he was conversing with Officer Wiederhold and four or five other

police officers, he was in a dazed state in which he lacked balance and equilibrium. 

Id. ¶ 15. Officer Wiederhold asked Plaintiff twice if he had been drinking alcohol,

allegedly based upon his observations of Plaintiff and the fact that Plaintiff was

driving with a flat tire. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. Plaintiff responded that he does not drink and

when asked if he had any medical problems advised Officer Wiederhold that he

had a transplanted kidney. Id. ¶ 17. “Plaintiff advised defendant Wiederhold that

the medication Plaintiff was currently taking should not effect his balance and

equilibrium according to Defendant Wiederhold’s report.” Id. ¶ 19. 

Plaintiff alleges that according to Officer Wiederhold’s police report, 

dexterity and counting tests were taken; however, Plaintiff has no memory of such

tests. Id. ¶ 21. The police report further indicates that Officer Wiederhold advised

Plaintiff that he was being detained for suspicion of driving while impaired and

that he was being transported to the Pottsville Hospital for a blood test. Id. ¶ 22. 

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 4 of 24
5

Plaintiff asserts that Officer Wiederhold then put Plaintiff’s hands behind his back,

handcuffed him, and transported him to the Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic.

Id. at ¶¶ 23, 27. Although Plaintiff alleges that he felt pain on his wrists from the

tight handcuffs and began to suffer breathing problems while in the vehicle

because of a heart condition, he did not “verbally complain because of being dazed

and in a semi-conscious state.” Id. ¶ 29. Subsequently, Plaintiff consented to a

blood test, which was administered by Craig Wywadis, an employee of the

Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic; however, Plaintiff has no memory of said

consent. Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiff alleges that despite the fact that his mental condition

continued to deteriorate, instead of offering treatment and/or refusing to treat

Plaintiff, the Pottsville Hospital allowed Plaintiff to leave the facility by himself. 

Id. ¶¶ 32, 35. However, Plaintiff then avers that Officer Wiederhold offered to

transport Plaintiff to a location of his choosing, but Plaintiff advised him that he

would walk. Id. ¶ 36. 

Later that day, Plaintiff alleges that his office called Womer’s Garage, the

location to which Plaintiff’s vehicle had been towed, to retrieve his briefcase, but

he was advised that the vehicle and its contents were impounded and could not be

released until a police officer approved the release. Id. ¶ 43. Plaintiff then

allegedly left a message for Officer Wiederhold to ask if he could retrieve

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 5 of 24
6

documents from a briefcase located in his vehicle; however, the phone call was not

returned. Id. at ¶ 44. 

Two weeks later, Plaintiff was notified by Taddeo Garage in Mount Carmel

that his vehicle was ready to be picked up. Id. ¶ 45. On March 11, 2005, Plaintiff

picked up his vehicle and discovered that the majority of the contents of his

briefcase had been emptied and that legal documents were scattered all over the

floor and front seat of his vehicle. Id. ¶ 46. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that an

inventory of documents from his briefcase revealed that many legal documents

were missing. Id. ¶ 47. 

DISCUSSION:

A. Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendants City of Pottsville and

Officer Wiederhold

In the Motion, Defendants City of Pottsville and Officer Wiederhold make

the following three primary arguments: first, that the Court should dismiss

Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Officer Wiederhold in his individual

capacity because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;

second, that alternatively the Court should dismiss the amended complaint against

Officer Wiederhold in his individual capacity because he is entitled to qualified

immunity for his actions; and third, that the Court should dismiss the amended

complaint against Officer Wiederhold in his official capacity and the City of

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 6 of 24
7

Pottsville because Plaintiff failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. 

(See Defs.’ Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss at 5). 

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff has asserted three federal claims, as well

as supplemental state claims, against Officer Wiederhold. The first federal claim

asserted concerns the allegation that Officer Wiederhold used excessive force when

he placed handcuffs on Plaintiff. Second, Plaintiff alleges that Officer Wiederhold

unlawfully searched and seized the contends of his briefcase. Lastly, Plaintiff

alleges that it was cruel and unusual punishment for Officer Wiederhold to fail to

provide medical treatment for Plaintiff’s kidney condition. 

We initially note that Plaintiff’s federal claims are brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides the following:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or

other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to

the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or

other proper proceeding for redress . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In order for a plaintiff to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must establish

two elements: 1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting

under color of state law; and 2) that the conduct deprived a person of rights,

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 7 of 24
8

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451

U.S. 527, 534 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams,

474 U.S. 327 (1986)).

Taking all allegations as true in the amended complaint as we must at this

juncture, we find that the City of Pottsville and Officer Wiederhold were acting

under color of state law at all relevant times. However, Plaintiff has failed to

establish the second element of a § 1983 claim, that is, that Defendants deprived

Plaintiff of a federal right secured under the Constitution or federal law for the

reasons that follow. 

We will address Plaintiff’s claims in turn.

i. Use of Excessive Force

Although Plaintiff attempts to assert an excessive force claim under the

Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, we are in agreement with

Defendants City of Pottsville and Officer Wiederhold that only the Fourth

Amendment is arguably implicated by Plaintiff’s excessive force claim. As such,

our inquiry focuses on the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s blood, and prior to that the

handcuffing of Plaintiff at the point of the traffic stop. 

The United States Supreme Court has held that a blood test performed in an

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 8 of 24
9

unreasonable manner violates the Fourth Amendment. Schmerber v. California,

384 U.S. 757, 768 (1966). To determine whether a blood test is reasonable

depends upon two separate inquiries: (1) whether the officer had probable cause to

require a test and (2) whether the test was conducted in a reasonable manner. Id.;

see also Orsatti v. N.J. State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 482-83 (3d Cir. 1995) (The

Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from arresting a citizen except upon

“probable cause.”); Freeman v. Murray, 163 F.Supp.2d 478, 485-89 (M.D. Pa.

2001), aff’d, 37 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2002). 

First, we note that the Court need not address whether the test was

conducted in a reasonable manner because there is no indication within the

amended complaint that Plaintiff’s blood was drawn at the Pottsville Hospital in

any fashion other than according to hospital practice. Second, from the face of the

amended complaint, we find that Officer Wiederhold had ample probable cause to

require a blood test from Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff’s amended complaint,

Plaintiff became disoriented as he drove from his home in Lavelle, Pennsylvania

to Pottsville, Pennsylvania and “became dazed and not capable of controlling his

physical function which would have allowed him to stop his vehicle.” (Am.

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 9 of 24
1

 We will observe that Lavelle is a considerable distance from Pottsville, and the primary

connecting routes are all two-lane highways with numerous sharp curves. Given this, and

Plaintiff’s admittedly disoriented condition, he was fortunate to make it as far as he did without

bringing harm to himself, other drivers, or pedestrians. 

2

 We note that in Plaintiff’s amended complaint, he indicates that he was “detained” for

suspicion of driving while impaired, whereas Defendants City of Pottsville and Officer

Wiederhold indicate that Plaintiff was “arrested.” The difference in terminology does not affect

the import of our holding regarding the fact that Officer Wiederhold possessed probable cause

under Fourth Amendment reasonableness to either arrest or detain Plaintiff for driving while

under the influence and to require him to submit to a blood test.

10

Compl. ¶ 8) (emphasis added).1 Moreover, Plaintiff asserted that during this period

of time he was going in and out of consciousness and that the police report reveals

that Plaintiff was driving with a flat tire. Id. ¶¶ 9, 16. Accordingly, we conclude

that Officer Wiederhold had probable cause under Fourth Amendment

reasonableness standards to arrest Plaintiff for driving while under the influence

and to require him to submit to a blood test.2

 Indeed, had he not stopped Plaintiff,

Officer Wiederhold would have been derelict in his duties, as surely Plaintiff, by

his own admission, was a vehicular tragedy waiting to happen. Having stopped

Plaintiff as he did, Officer Wiederhold, again through facts admitted by Plaintiff,

had every good reason to obtain a blood alcohol test. The Supreme Court has

instructed that the state may legitimately compel a suspect under probable cause to

submit to a blood alcohol test as it is safe, brief, and painless. See South Dakota v.

Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 559, 563 (1983). That is precisely what took place here. 

Accordingly, we next turn to the handcuffing issue as presented by Plaintiff.

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 10 of 24
11

Although Plaintiff argues that the mere “placement of handcuffs on Plaintiff

on suspicion of driving while impaired is excessive and unreasonable under the

circumstances,” the Supreme Court has explained that in an excessive force claim,

the question is whether the officer’s actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of

the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying

intent or motivation. Am. Compl. ¶ 55; Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397

(1989). We find that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish actual

injury, and that the minimal use of force applied to Plaintiff during his arrest was

objectively reasonable and not violative of the Fourth Amendment. See Kopec v.

Tate, 371 F.3d 772, 778 n.7 (3d Cir. 2004) (“Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges

actual injury inflicted by a police officer in the course of an arrest, and supports his

allegation with specific facts so that it cannot be said as a matter of law that the use

of force was objectively reasonable, the issue of whether excessive force was

employed must be left to the trier of fact.”). We do not find, contrary to Plaintiff’s

allegations, that Officer Wiederhold “maliciously” placed handcuffs on Plaintiff or

that such handcuffing was part of an overarching policy “in all cases without

consideration of the degree or nature of the wrongful conduct[.]” (Am. Compl. ¶¶

54, 59). In addition, although Plaintiff alleges that it was impossible for him to

verbally notify Officer Wiederhold of the pain that he felt from the tight handcuffs

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 11 of 24
12

based on being incapacitation and “dazed,” we note that law enforcement

personnel were not put on notice that Plaintiff’s handcuffs were too tight, nor did

they ignore any plea to loosen the handcuffs. Finally, tight handcuffing alone is

insufficient to state a claim of excessive force. See, e.g., Burchett v. Kiefer, 310

F.3d 937, 944-45 (6th Cir. 2002). Again, accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, as

we must at this juncture, Plaintiff has presented us with nothing more than a tight

handcuffing claim. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is granted with regard to

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. 

ii. Search and Seizure of Legal Documents

Plaintiff has also asserted a search and seizure claim under the Fourth

Amendment, by application of the Fourteenth Amendment, regarding an alleged

seizure of Plaintiff’s vehicle and important legal documents contained within his

briefcase in said vehicle. 

After a careful review of the record and applicable case law, we are in

agreement with Defendants that a post-arrest search and seizure of a vehicle is not

per se violative of the Fourth Amendment. McFadden v. United States, 814 F.2d

144, 147-48 (3d cir. 1987). Moreover, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held

that “the authority of police to seize and remove from the street vehicles impeding

traffic or threatening safety and convenience is beyond challenge.” Id. (quoting

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 12 of 24
3

 We find Plaintiff’s argument that a Fourth Amendment claim has been established

based upon the fact that the garage allegedly indicated that the police would need to authorize

the release of Plaintiff’s vehicle and contents to be unavailing in the case sub judice. 

13

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976)). 

We conclude that taking Plaintiff’s allegations in the amended complaint as

true, as we must, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that the

impounding of his vehicle, which happened to contain his briefcase, was anything

more than the removal of an unsafe vehicle from the street after the lawful arrest of

its driver, Plaintiff. 

Additionally, as Defendants accurately submit, although Plaintiff asserts that

Officer Wiederhold violated his rights when he failed to return a telephone

message allegedly left by Plaintiff’s staff requesting the return of his property,

Plaintiff has failed to establish that Officer Wiederhold even received the message.3

Plaintiff subsequently concludes that Officer Wiederhold violated his rights by

dumping his briefcase on the floor of the vehicle and seizing certain documents;

however, Plaintiff utterly fails to allege facts sufficient to establish the necessary

personal involvement of Officer Wiederhold. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals

has instructed that a defendant in a civil rights action must have personal

involvement in the alleged wrongs. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207

(3d Cir. 1988). As Defendants explain, personal involvement can be shown

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 13 of 24
4

 Additionally, we find it notable as submitted by Defendants that if anything, it appears

that Plaintiff has provided an alibi for Officer Wiederhold by alleging that Plaintiff went to the

hospital with Officer Wiederhold while Plaintiff’s vehicle and briefcase remained at the scene. 

(Am. Compl. ¶¶ 26-28). 

14

through allegations of personal direction or of actual knowledge and acquiescence. 

Id. Allegations of participation or actual knowledge and acquiescence; however,

must be made with appropriate particularity. Id. 

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his vehicle was impounded

on February 22, 2005 to Womer’s Garage before being transported at an unknown

date to Taddeo Garage in Mount Carmel for repairs. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 43, 45). 

The alleged search and seizure was not discovered until March 11, 2005. Id. ¶ 46. 

We are in agreement with Defendants that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient

facts to establish that Officer Wiederhold had any involvement in the alleged

search and seizure of Plaintiff’s briefcase.4

 

Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is granted with respect to Plaintiff’s Fourth

Amendment search and seizure claim.

iii. Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Denial of Necessary

Medical Care

Plaintiff’s final federal claim against Defendants City of Pottsville and

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 14 of 24
5

 Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ allegedly cruel and unusual conduct is also

violative of the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, our inquiry will be restricted to an

analysis of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as they are arguably implicated by this case. 

The Ninth Amendment provides the following: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain

rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” U.S. Const.

amend. IX. The construction of the Ninth Amendment and its plain language reveal that it

provides positive affirmation to the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are

nonetheless protected by other provisions. The Federalist No. 84 (Modern Library ed. 1937);

Griswold v. Connecticut, 318 U.S. 479 (1965). As Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants’ conduct

violated enumerated Constitutional rights, the Ninth Amendment is not applicable to our analysis

of the pending Motions. 

6

 The Supreme Court has instructed that the Eighth Amendment applies “only after the

State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal

15

Officer Wiederhold concerns the Eighth Amendment.5 In his amended complaint,

Plaintiff asserts that Officer Wiederhold violated the Eighth Amendment when he

failed to call Plaintiff’s doctor, failed to inform the hospital of Plaintiff’s need for

medical treatment, and acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical

needs by allowing him to leave the hospital in his then current state. Plaintiff

argues that Officer Wiederhold did not satisfy his constitutional duty to provide

medical treatment by transporting Plaintiff to the Pottsville Hospital for a blood

test and accordingly violated Plaintiff’s right to medical treatment “as required.”

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment,

made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process

clause, requires the State to provide adequate medical care to incarcerated

prisoners. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667 (1962); Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97, 104-6 (1976).6

 However, Plaintiff’s amended complaint reveals that

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 15 of 24
prosecutions . . . [T]he State does not acquire the power to punish with which the Eighth

Amendment is concerned until after it has secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance

with due process of law.” Deshaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Services, 489 U.S.

189, 199 n.6 (1989). 

16

he was not a prisoner. He has therefore failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim

upon which relief can be granted.

We must now determine whether Plaintiff has asserted a cognizable

Fourteenth Amendment claim. Although Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976),

was decided under the Eighth Amendment, which prevents cruel and unusual

punishment to those convicted of crimes, courts have determined that the deliberate

failure or refusal to provide necessary medical treatment to persons held in police

custody also violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See

Baldi v. Philadelphia, 609 F. Supp. 162, 166 (E.D. Pa. 1985). Accordingly, failure

to provide medical care to a person in custody can rise to the level of a

constitutional violation under § 1983 only if that failure rises to the level of

deliberate indifference to that person’s serious medical needs. See, e.g., Groman v.

Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 637-38 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Estelle, 429

U.S. 97). 

To ascertain whether an individual has been held in “custody,” the Supreme

Court has instructed that custody must be determined based upon how a reasonable

person in the suspect’s situation would perceive or understand the situation. 

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 16 of 24
17

Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 662 (2004). While as previously noted

Plaintiff was not an incarcerated prisoner, the Supreme Court has explained that

even if a formal arrest did not occur in this case, there was clearly a restraint on the

freedom of Plaintiff’s movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest as he

was pulled over by Officer Wiederhold, placed in handcuffs, and required to

submit to a blood test at the Pottsville Hospital after being driven there by Officer

Wiederhold. Id. at 663. As we previously explained, failure to provide medical

care to a person in custody can rise to the level of a constitutional violation under §

1983 only if that failure rises to the level of deliberate indifference to that person’s

serious medical needs. Groman , 47 F.3d at 637-38 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. 97). 

The Supreme Court has instructed that “deliberate indifference” may be manifested

by “intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally

interfering with the treatment once prescribed.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-5; see

also Thomas v. Dragovich, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14155, at *7 (3d Cir. 2005). 

Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations in the amended complaint as true, as we

must, we find it noteworthy that Plaintiff admits that he had an exchange with

Officer Wiederhold in which the Officer “offered to transport Plaintiff where he

wanted to go, whereupon Plaintiff advised Defendant Wiederhold that he

would walk.” (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36, 38) (emphasis added). Officer Wiederhold

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 17 of 24
18

therefore did not simply permit Plaintiff to leave the hospital by himself, but

specifically asked to transport Plaintiff to a location of his choosing; however,

Plaintiff “advised Defendant Wiederhold that he would walk.” Id. at ¶ 36.

(emphasis added). It consequently strains credulity that Plaintiff is placing the

burden on Officer Wiederhold to either forcibly keep Plaintiff at the Pottsville

Hospital and Warne Clinic or to forcibly place him in his police vehicle. By his

own admission, Plaintiff was capable of having a dialogue with Officer

Wiederhold, in which he first denied a generous offer to be driven to any location,

and subsequently walked out of the hospital to his law office under his own power.

Therefore, after a careful review of the applicable caselaw and taking

Plaintiff’s allegations, particularly as noted above, as true, we do not find that

Plaintiff has established a constitutional violation under § 1983 such that an

alleged failure to provide medical treatment rose to the level of deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is granted regarding Plaintiff’s Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendment claims. As we have determined that Plaintiff has

failed to state a claim against Officer Wiederhold, we need not reach the issue of

whether he is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. Lastly, although

Plaintiff attempts to hold the City of Pottsville liable for the alleged illegal actions

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 18 of 24
19

of Officer Wiederhold, since we have determined that Plaintiff failed to state an

underlying constitutional violation against Officer Wiederhold, there is no basis for

imposing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability against the City of Pottsville. City of Los

Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (“neither Monell v. New York City

Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S 658 (1978), nor any other of our cases authorizes

the award of damages against a municipal corporation based on the actions of one

of its officers when in fact the jury has concluded that the officer inflicted no

constitutional harm.”); see also Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d

458, 467 (3d Cir. 1989). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against

Defendant City of Pottsville upon which relief can be granted. 

B. Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendant Pottsville Hospital and

Warne Clinic 

In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic

argues that Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment should be

dismissed for failure to plead any facts to establish that the actions or inactions of

the Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic constitute state action. Alternatively,

Defendant Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic assert that Plaintiff’s claim for

violation of the Eighth Amendment should be dismissed for failure to plead any

facts to support that the fact that it acted with deliberate indifference to a serious

medical need of an incarcerated person.

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 19 of 24
7

 As we have previously indicated, the only constitutional amendments cited by Plaintiff

which are arguably implicated on this issue are the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 

20

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied necessary

medical care contrary to the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.7

“Defendants, their agents and employees, with knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical

needs, and/or with deliberate indifference to such medical needs, have acted or

failed to act in such a manner as to prevent Plaintiff from obtaining needed medical

treatment and case and/or to prevent needed medical treatment and care from

reaching the Plaintiff thereby endangering the Plaintiff’s health and well-being.” 

(Am. Compl. ¶ 98). 

After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we find even

assuming, arguendo, that the conduct of the Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic

constitutes state action, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted for the reasons that follow. 

As we previously explained, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against

cruel and unusual punishment, made applicable to the States through the

Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, requires the State to provide

adequate medical care to incarcerated prisoners; however, Plaintiff’s amended

complaint reveals that he was not a prisoner. Robinson, 370 U.S. at 667; Estelle,

429 U.S. at 104-6. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth Amendment

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 20 of 24
21

claim upon which relief can be granted.

In determining whether Plaintiff has asserted a cognizable Fourteenth

Amendment claim, we reiterate that courts have determined that the deliberate

failure or refusal to provide necessary medical treatment to persons held in police

custody violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Baldi, 609

F. Supp. at 166. The failure to provide medical care to a person in custody can rise

to the level of a constitutional violation under § 1983 only if that failure rises to the

level of deliberate indifference to that person’s serious medical needs. Groman, 47

F.3d at 637-38 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. 97). As we explained above, Plaintiff was

in custody of the Pottsville Police Department when he entered the emergency

room of the Pottsville Hospital because Officer Wiederhold transported him to the

hospital in handcuffs after he was either arrested or detained for driving while

under the influence and required to submit to a blood test. Plaintiff was not

permitted to leave, nor free to leave, the Pottsville Hospital until a blood test had

been taken by proper personnel. A restraint on the freedom of Plaintiff’s

movement therefore occurred of the degree associated with a formal arrest. 

Yarborough, 541 U.S. at 663. 

Accordingly, we find that Plaintiff has established that he was in police

custody during the relevant time period of this case; however, Plaintiff has failed to

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 21 of 24
22

establish a constitutional violation under § 1983 such that an alleged failure to

provide medical treatment rose to the level of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s

serious medical needs. Taking Plaintiff’s allegations in the amended complaint as

true, he has asserted an arguable, although dubious on its face claim that the

Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic was negligent or that it may have failed to

exercise the appropriate judgment in permitting Plaintiff to leave the hospital after

the blood test was conducted despite the fact that it allegedly was aware of

Plaintiff’s kidney condition, observed a medical alert bracelet, and witnessed

Plaintiff’s “dazed mental condition.” However, it is significant and noteworthy

that negligence in medical diagnosis and/or treatment does not constitute deliberate

indifference, nor does medical malpractice. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (“[I]n the

medical context, an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care cannot be

said to constitute an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain or to be repugnant

to the conscience of mankind. Thus a complaint that a physician has been

negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a claim of

medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.”) (internal citations omitted);

White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 1990). Plaintiff has therefore failed

to establish that when he was in police custody Defendant Pottsville Hospital and

Warne Clinic failed to provide medical care in a fashion which rose to the level of

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 22 of 24
23

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Groman, 47 F.3d at

637-38. Plaintiff, who we again note admitted that he walked away from the

Pottsville Hospital and Warne Clinic to his law office, then traveled to the

Courthouse, and finally returned to his law office after the administration of the

blood test, simply cannot inflate this panoply into a constitutional claim. (Am.

Compl. ¶¶ 39, 41-42). Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Pottsville Hospital and

Warne Clinic is accordingly granted. 

Finally, as we have dismissed all claims over which we had original

jurisdiction, we will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim [in any civil action of which the

district courts have original jurisdiction] if the district court has dismissed all

claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”). 

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 23 of 24
24

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Motion of Defendants City of Pottsville and Officer Dennis

Wiederhold to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (doc. 15) is

GRANTED.

2. The Motion to Dismiss filed by The Pottsville Hospital and Warne

Clinic (doc. 25) is GRANTED. 

3. The Clerk shall close the file on this case. 

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00413-JEJ Document 34 Filed 10/13/05 Page 24 of 24