Legal Opinion
Kingsmill v. Szewczak
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 30, 2015No. Civil Action No. 15-2386PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
DALZELL, District Judge.
I. Introduction
We consider here defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff Eric KingsmilTs amended complaint. Kingsmill brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants, Police Officer Christopher Szewczak and the City of Philadelphia. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
As will be seen by our analysis below, Kingsmill has pled sufficient facts, accepted as true, to demonstrate that Officer Szewczak violated his Fourteenth Amendment substantive Due Process rights on a state-created danger theory of liability. Officer Szewczak is not…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Grubbs v. University of Delaware Police DepartmentDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2016
- Grubbs v. MarconiDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2017
- APONTE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIADistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2021
- BAIR v. SOLANCO SCHOOL DISTRICTDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2020
- BURKE v. MITCHELLDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2024
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.