STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

E.D. Pennsylvania

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

DecidedJanuary 23, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-00338

StatusUnknown

This text of STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA (STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, (E.D. Pa. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

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

WILLIE STOKES : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff : : NO. 22-0338 v. : : CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. : Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January 2023, upon consideration of the partial motion to dismiss filed by Defendants the Estate of Detective Lawrence Gerrard (“Detective Gerrard”) and the City of Philadelphia (the “City”) (collectively, “Defendants”), [ECF 17], Plaintiff Willie Stokes’ (“Stokes”) response in opposition, [ECF 21], Defendants’ reply, [ECF 23], and the allegations in the complaint, [ECF 1], it is hereby ORDERED, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, that: 1. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Detective Gerrard for civil rights conspiracy (Count III) and denial of liberty without due process of law (Count V) premised on Detective Gerrard’s alleged failure to disclose exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); 2. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes’ § 1983 malicious prosecution conspiracy claim against Detective Gerrard (Count III), but only to the extent that claim is grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes’ § 1983 conspiracy claims against Detective Gerrard (Count III) based on theories of unreasonable searches and seizures, false arrest, and false imprisonment; 4. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes’ Monell claims against the City (Counts IV and VI), but only to the extent these claims are premised on the City’s involvement in officers’ failure to disclose exculpatory information in violation of Brady; and 5. The motion to dismiss is DENIED in all other respects. BY THE COURT: /s/ Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro NITZA I. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO Judge, United States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

WILLIE STOKES : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff : : NO. 22-0338 v. : : CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. : Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January 2023, upon consideration of the partial motion to dismiss filed by Defendants the Estate of Detective Lawrence Gerrard (“Detective Gerrard”) and the City of Philadelphia (the “City”) (collectively, “Defendants”), [ECF 17], Plaintiff Willie Stokes’ (“Stokes”) response in opposition, [ECF 21], Defendants’ reply, [ECF 23], and the allegations in the complaint, [ECF 1], it is hereby ORDERED, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, that: 1. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Detective Gerrard for civil rights conspiracy (Count III) and denial of liberty without due process of law (Count V) premised on Detective Gerrard’s alleged failure to disclose exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); 2. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes’ § 1983 malicious prosecution conspiracy claim against Detective Gerrard (Count III), but only to the extent that claim is grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes’ § 1983 conspiracy claims against Detective Gerrard (Count III) based on theories of unreasonable searches and seizures, false arrest, and false imprisonment; 4. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes’ Monell claims against the City (Counts IV and VI), but only to the extent these claims are premised on the City’s involvement in officers’ failure to disclose exculpatory information in violation of Brady; and 5. The motion to dismiss is DENIED in all other respects. BY THE COURT: /s/ Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro NITZA I. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO Judge, United States District Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-v-city-of-philadelphia-paed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack