Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180327_0000437.WPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:03:48+00:00

Document:
CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, CALIFORNIA BOROUGH, DONALD GETTIG, TOM MCCARTHY, ALYSSA BROWN, DANIEL STURM, STEVEN ORBIN, RICK ENCAPERA, EDWARD MCSHEFERY Defendants.
Currently pending before this Court is Defendants Rick Encapera (“Encapera”), Tom McCarthy (“McCarthy”), and the Borough of California's (“Borough”), Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) various Counts included in the Plaintiff, Charles Mrlack, Jr.'s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (ECF No. 1), as well as the responses in favor and in opposition thereto. (ECF No. 24, 32; ECF No. 28, 29.) Encapera seeks to dismiss Count VI pertaining to fabrication of evidence. (ECF No. 23 ¶¶ 4-7.) McCarthy seeks to dismiss Count IV, pertaining to deprivation of medical care, Count V, pertaining to conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights, and Count IX pertaining to false imprisonment. (Id. ¶¶ 8-11, 12-15, 23-26.) The Borough seeks to dismiss Count VII, pertaining to failure to train, and Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. (Id. ¶¶ 16-18, 21-22.) This Court will only respond to the allegations and claims that are relevant to this Partial Motion.
A complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” But detailed pleading is not generally required. The Rules demand “only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.; see also Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 262 n. 27 (3d Cir. 2010). Although the plausibility standard “does not impose a probability requirement, ” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, it does require a pleading to show “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully, ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A complaint that pleads facts “merely consistent with a defendant's liability. . . stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id.(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The plausibility determination is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 786-87 (3d Cir. 2016).
First, it must “tak[e] note of the elements [the] plaintiff must plead to state a claim.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675. Second, it should identify allegations that, “because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 679; see also Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 224 (3d Cir.2011) (“Mere restatements of the elements of a claim are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” (citation and editorial marks omitted)). Finally, “[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, [the] court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Id. at 787. “This means that [the court's] inquiry is normally broken into three parts: (1) identifying the elements of the claim, (2) reviewing the complaint to strike conclusory allegations, and then (3) looking at the well-pleaded components of the complaint and evaluating whether all of the elements identified in part one of the inquiry are sufficiently alleged.” Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011).
The third step of this evaluation requires the court to consider the specific nature of the claims presented and to determine whether the facts pled to substantiate the claims are sufficient to show a “plausible claim for relief.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). “Although a plaintiff may use legal conclusions to provide the structure for the complaint, the pleading's factual content must independently ‘permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.'” Guirguis v. Movers Specialty Servs., Inc., 346 F. App'x 774, 776 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 at 679)) (other citation omitted).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.