Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 1 of 86

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE THOMAS S. NEUBERGER, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : THOMAS P. GORDON, individually; SHERRY : L. FREEBERY, individually; CHRISTOPHER : A. COONS, in his official capacity as County : Executive; DAVID W. SINGLETON, in his : official capacity as Chief Administrative Officer; : and NEW CASTLE COUNTY, a municipal : corporation, : : Defendants. :

C.A.No. 05-916 TNO

PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN M. LaROSA JOHN M. LaROSA, ESQ. Delaware Bar No. 4275 Two East Seventh Street, Suite 302 Wilmington, DE 19801-3707 (302) 888-1290 [email protected] OF COUNSEL: THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE JOHN W. WHITEHEAD, ESQ. DOUGLAS R. McKUSICK, ESQ. P.O. Box 7482 Charlottesville, VA 22906 (434) 978-3888 [email protected] [email protected] Dated: April 25, 2008

THE NEUBERGER FIRM, P.A. STEPHEN J. NEUBERGER, ESQ. Delaware Bar No. 4440 Two East Seventh Street, Suite 302 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 655-0582 [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 2 of 86

TABLE OF CONTENTS NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A. B. C. Plaintiff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Plaintiff's Protected First Amendment Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Speech to the Media and the Public Challenging Government Corruption and Illegality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 a. Defendants Were Enraged by this Speech to the Media and the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.

Filing of Numerous Lawsuits Challenging Government Corruption . . . . . 4 a. Defendants Were Enraged by the Filing of These Lawsuits . . . . . 5

D.

Defendants Retaliate Against Plaintiff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. The Release of Neuberger's Private and Confidential Medical Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 a. b. c. Release to the Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Release Throughout County Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Defendants' Intent in Releasing This Private and Confidential Medical Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.

The Defamatory Newspaper Attack Ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 a. b. These Accusations are False . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Defendants' Intent in Publishing These False Accusations . . . . . . 7

E.

The First Amendment Rights of Plaintiff and His Clients Have Been Chilled by the Defense Retaliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 i

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 3 of 86

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A. B. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Rule 8(a)(2)'s "Extremely Lenient" Notice Pleading Standards . . . . . . . . 8 1. Fair Notice is All That is Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 a. b. The Supreme Court's Illustration of Fair Notice . . . . . . . . 9 This Simplified Pleading System is Intended To Focus Litigation On the Merits of a Claim . . . . . . . . . 10

2.

A Plaintiff Need Not Plead Facts to Match the Evidentiary Elements of His Legal Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A Plaintiff Need Not Plead a Legal Theory At All . . . . . . . . . . . 11 All a Complaint Must Do is State the Conduct, Time, Place and Persons Responsible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 These "Extremely Lenient" Pleading Standards Apply In the Civil Rights Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. 4.

5.

C. D.

Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 If a Complaint Fails to State a Claim, the District Court Must Allow Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Matters Outside the Pleadings May Not Be Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Novel Theories of Law Should Not Be Addressed at the Motion to Dismiss Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

E. F.

II.

PLAINTIFF HAS PROPERLY PLED THE CONDUCT, TIME, PLACE AND PERSONS INVOLVED IN HIS CLAIMS TO PLACE DEFENDANTS ON NOTICE OF THE CLAIMS AGAINST THEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. B. The Core of Operative Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 The Many Legal Claims that Flow From These Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Fourteenth Amendment - Right to Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

ii

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 4 of 86

a.

Evidentiary Standards Do Not Apply at the Motion to Dismiss Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The Conduct, Time, Place and Persons Responsible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

b.

2.

First Amendment Retaliation - Speech, Petition and Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 a. Evidentiary Standards Do Not Apply at the Motion to Dismiss Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 The Conduct, Time, Place and Persons Responsible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

b.

III.

DEFENDANTS GORDON AND FREEBERY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A. B. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 The Facts Show That Defendants Violated Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1. Fourteenth Amendment Right to Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 a. b. The Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Plaintiff Has a Strong Privacy Interest in the Confidentiality of His Personal Medical Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 There Was No Governmental Interest in Disclosure Outweighing Plaintiff's Privacy Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

c.

2.

First Amendment Retaliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 a. Overarching First Amendment Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 (1). Retaliation for the Exercise of Constitutional Rights Violates § 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 The Motivation for Government Action is Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 iii

(2).

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 5 of 86

(3).

The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 The First Amendment Retaliation Test . . . . . . . . 29

(4). b.

Plaintiff's Speech to the Media and the Public Challenging Government Corruption and Illegality . . . . . 30 Plaintiff's Vigorous Advocacy of Unpopular Causes, Association With His Clients and Filing of Lawsuits Challenging Government Wrongdoing . . . . 32 (1). Litigation Has Long Been Recognized as a Means for Achieving Equality of Treatment for All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 The Attorney Retaliation Line of Cases . . . . . . . . 33 (a). The Sole Case Upon Which the Defense Rests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

c.

(2).

(3).

In Order to Protect the Citizen's Right of Access to the Courts and Other Precious First Amendment Rights, it is Necessary To Protect Their Ability to Seek Out Independent and Courageous Legal Counsel Willing to Challenge the Powers That Be . . . . . . 39 (a). The Collective First Amendment Right to Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 The Individual First Amendment Right to Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Defendants' Actions Have Chilled the First Amendment Rights of Plaintiff's Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Defendants' Actions Also Have Chilled Plaintiff's First Amendment Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

(b).

(c).

(d).

d.

The Retaliatory Actions Taken Against Plaintiff Would Deter a Person of Ordinary Firmness From Exercising Their First Amendment Rights . . . . . . . . . . . 43 iv

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 6 of 86

(1). (2).

The Person of Ordinary Firmness Standard . . . . . 44 Defendants' Retaliatory Actions Would Deter a Person of Ordinary Firmness From Exercising their First Amendment Rights . . . . . . 46

C.

Plaintiff's Rights Were Clearly Established . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 1. 2. Plaintiff's Long Established Right to Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Plaintiff's Long Established Rights Against First Amendment Retaliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 a. Right to Be Free of Retaliation For Speech to the Media Challenging Government Corruption and Illegality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Right to Be Free of Retaliation for Advocacy of Unpopular Causes, Association With His Clients and Filing of Lawsuits Challenging Government Wrongdoing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

b.

IV.

PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING BECAUSE HE HAS SUFFERED AN INJURY IN FACT AND A FAVORABLE DECISION WILL REDRESS THE HARM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 A. B. C. The Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Plaintiff Has Suffered an Injury In Fact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Plaintiff's Injuries Can Be Redressed by the Requested Relief . . . . . . . . 59 1. Compensatory and Punitive Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 a. Compensatory Damages Are Recoverable in § 1983 Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2. 3. D.

Injunctive Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Declaratory Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Plaintiff Also Has Standing to Assert the Rights of His Clients . . . . . . . 64

v

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 7 of 86

V.

PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW DEFAMATION AND INVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIMS AGAINST GORDON AND FREEBERY INDIVIDUALLY ARE NOT BARRED BY THE TORT IMMUNITY STATUTE BECAUSE DEFENDANTS ACTED AS PRIVATE CITIZENS, FAR OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THEIR JOB DUTIES AND DID SO WITH EXPRESS MALICE AND INTENT TO INJURE . . . . . . 65 COONS AND SINGLETON ARE PROPER OFFICIAL CAPACITY DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 A. B. Injunctive Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Attorneys' Fees and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

VI.

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

vi

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 8 of 86

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page

A.D. Bedell v. Phillip Morris Inc, 263 F.3d 239 (3d. Cir 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Abu-Jamal v. Price, 154 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 ACLU v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57-58 Agosto-de-Feliciano v. Aponte-Rogue, 889 F.2d 1209 (1st Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Al Makaaseb General Trading Co. v. U.S. Steel International, Inc., 412 F.Supp.2d 485 (W.D.Pa. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Allah v. Al-Hafeez, 226 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,44 Am. Airways Charters, Inc. v. Regan, 746 F.2d 865 (D.C.Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-20,28-30,33,38,43,53,55 Andrews v. City of Phila., 895 F.2d 1469 (3d Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,48 Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Assaf v. Fields, 178 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Atkinson v. Taylor, 316 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Aversa v. U.S., 99 F.3d 1200 (1st Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Baca v. Sklar, 398 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Baldassare v. St. of N.J., 250 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Banks v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 320 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Bart v. Telford, 677 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,47 Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350 (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40-41, 54 Bd. of County Comm'rs, Wabaunsee County v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . 19,29 Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644 (3d Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,17 vii

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 9 of 86

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,11 Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44-45 Bennett v. Murphy, 120 Fed.Appx. 914 (3d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Bennett v. Murphy, 274 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Bennis v. Gable, 823 F.2d 723 (3d Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,51,53-54 Bibbins v. City of Baton Rouge, 489 F.Supp.2d 562 (M.D.La. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3d 1445 (3d Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,55 Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,47 Boykins v. Ambridge Area Sch. Dist., 621 F.2d 75 (3d Cir. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-13,18 Branch v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 825 F.Supp. 384 (D.Mass. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Brennan v. Norton, 350 F.3d 399 (3d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,48,55 Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Va. Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,43,54-55 Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F.2d 155 (3d Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . 55 Buckhead Am. Corp. v. Reliance Capital Group, Inc., 178 B.R. 956 (D.Del. 1994) . . . . . . . . . 17 Bullen v. Chaffinch, 336 F.Supp.2d 342 (D.Del. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 C.N. v. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., 430 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,23,26,52 Cal. Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. U.S., 491 U.S. 617 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60-61 Carroll v. Pfeffer, 262 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Cipriani v. Lycoming County Hous. Auth., 177 F.Supp.2d 303 (M.D.Pa. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 viii

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 10 of 86

Citizens for Health v. Leavitt, 428 F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Cooper v. Kearney, 2005 WL 3312823 (D.Del. Dec. 7, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Compaq Computer Corp. v. Inacom Corp., 2001 WL 789408 (D. Del. July 12, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11,17-18 Connecticut General Life Insur. Co. v. Universal Insur. Co., 838 F.2d 612 (1st Cir. 1988) . . . 11 Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Constantine v. Rectors and Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2005) . . . 45 Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 DeLoach v. Bevers, 922 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,54-55 Denius v. Dunlap, 209 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,54 Doe v. Borough of Barrington, 729 F.Supp. 376 (D.N.J. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-24 Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309 (3d Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,23-24,50-51,53 Doe v. District of Columbia, 697 F.2d 1115 (D.C.Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Doe v. SEPTA, 72 F.3d 1133 (3d Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Eichenlaub v. Twp. of Indiana, 385 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,39 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,11-13,18 Faison v. Parker, 823 F.Supp. 1198 (E.D.Pa.1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 First Defense Legal Aid v. City of Chicago, 209 F.Supp.2d 935 (N.D.Ill. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Flickinger v. Harold C. Brown & Co., 947 F.2d 595 (2d Cir.1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Foraker v. Chaffinch, 501 F.3d 231(3d Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 v. City of Phila,, 812 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1987) . . 23,25,53 Freeman and Bass, P.A. v. State of N.J. Comm'n of Investigation, 359 F.Supp. 1053 (D.N.J. 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,33,37,41,43,56,63-65 ix

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 11 of 86

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Garcia v. City of Trenton, 348 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45-46 Good v. Dauphin County, 891 F.2d 1087 (3d Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-51 Guthridge v. Pen-Mod, Inc., 239 A.2d 709 (Del.Super. 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Hall v. Pa. State Police, 570 F.2d 86 (3d Cir. 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,18 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,53 Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,21,30,34 Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,32,54 Herr v. Pequea Township, 274 F.3d 109 (3d Cir.2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Hicks v. Finney, 770 F.2d 375 (3d Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,55 Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Holder v. City of Allentown, 987 F.2d 188 (3d Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,53 Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Hutto v. Finnery, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Izen v. Catalina, 382 F.3d 566 (5th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,34,37,43,56 Izen v. Catalina, 398 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,34,37,43,56 In re Freebery, 930 A.2d 928 (Del. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 In re Freebery, 2008 WL 1801980 (Del. April 21, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,43,54-55 In re TI.B., 762 A.2d 20 (D.C.App. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Jones v. Sheahan, 2002 WL 959814 (N.D.Ill. May 9, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 x

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 12 of 86

Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250 (3d Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Jordan v. Hutcheson, 323 F.2d 597 (4th Cir. 1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Keenan v. Tejeda, 290 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of the State of N.Y., 385 U.S. 589 (1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 King v. Knoll, 399 F.Supp.2d 1169 (D.Kan. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,56 Kirkpatrick v. Merit Behavioral Care Corp., 128 F.Supp.2d 186 (D.Vt. 2000). . . . . . . . . . 11-12 Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Lapinski v. Bd. of Educ. of the Brandywine Sch. Dist., 2006 WL 167443 (3d Cir. Jan. 24, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 998 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . 16 Leveto v. Lapina, 258 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,55 Lewter v. Kannensohn, 159 Fed.Appx. 641 (6th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-38 Losch v. Borough of Parkesburg, Pa., 736 F.2d 903 (3d Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Mariana v. Fisher, 338 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Martin v. Lauer, 686 F.2d 24 (D.C.Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,55 McCormick v. City of Lawrence, Kansas, 253 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D.Kan. 2003) . . . . . . . . . 35,56 McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Mele v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., 359 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Memphis Comm. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60-61 xi

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 13 of 86

Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-32,35-39,47,56 Mitchell v. Street, 415 F.Supp.2d 490 (E.D.Pa. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,53 Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth, 436 F.3d 397 (3d Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Morrison v. Ayoob, 627 F.2d 669 (3d Cir. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Mothershed v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,54 Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) . . . . . . . . . 19,28-30,53 NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,32-33,35,40,54-56 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Nicholas v. Pa. State Univ., 227 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 539 U.S. 654 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 O'Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44-47 O'Donnell v. Yanchulis, 875 F.2d 1059 (3d Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,53 O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-20,29 Olmstead v. United States, 232 F.3d 190 (1928) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380 (3d Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Owens v. Rush, 654 F.2d 1370 (10th Cir. 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,56 Paff v. Kaltenback, 204 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Pekin v. County of San Benito, 2006 WL 2474334 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 25, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Industries, Inc., 998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,29,42 Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11,13-14 Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,38,53 Poole v. County of Otero, 271 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 xii

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 14 of 86

Power v. Summers, 226 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Price v. Carroll, 2008 WL 170530 (D.Del. Jan. 17, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-13,18 Price v. Chaffinch, 2006 WL 131378 (D.Del. May 12, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44-46,48 Price v. Chaffinch, C.A.No. 04-956 (D.Del. May 15, 2006) (slip op.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Putnam v. Adams Communication Corp., 1987 WL 13262 (D.Mass. June. 15, 1987) . . . . . . . 33 Relational Funding Corp. v. TCIM Services, Inc., 2002 WL 655479 (D.Del. April 18, 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 949 F.2d 653 (3d Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . 16 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Riggs v. City of Albuquerque, 916 F.2d 582 (10th Cir.1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Rivera-Jimenez v. Pierluisi, 362 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,56 Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,53 Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006). . . . . . . . . 29 Rutan v. Republican Party, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44-45 San Filippo v. Bongiovanni, 30 F.3d 424 (3d Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Sec'y of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Skehan v. Bd. of Trustees of Bloomsburg State Coll., 590 F.2d 470 (3d Cir. 1978) . . . . . . . . . 66 Smith v. Plati, 258 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,34,44 Springer v. Henry, 435 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57-58 Sterling v. Borough of Minersville, 232 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . 18,22-23,25-26,53 Stillman v. C.I.A., 319 F.3d 546 (D.C.Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 xiii

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 15 of 86

Stillman v. Dept. of Def., 209 F.Supp.2d 185 (D.D.C. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41-42 Stoneking v. Bradford Area Sch. Dist., 882 F.2d 720 (3d Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Suppan v. Dadonna, 203 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44-46,48 Swartzwelder v. McNeilly, 297 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,63 Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11,17-18 Taylor v. Ky. State Bar Assoc., 424 F.2d 478 (6th Cir. 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . 33-34,36-37,39,43,55 Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,32 Thomas v. Ind. Township, 463 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,22,54 Tillman v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., 2005 WL 2127820 (D.Del. Aug. 30, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 977 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir.1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Trade Waste Mgmt Ass'n, Inc. v. Hughey, 780 F.2d 221 (3d Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 U.S. v. American Library Ass'n., Inc., 539 U.S. 194 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 U.S. v. Lanier, 201 F.3d 842 (6th Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,39 U.S. v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51-52 U.S. v. Smith, 73 F.3d 1414 (6th Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,39 U.S. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 638 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,25,53 United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Twp. of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. 2003) . . . . . 55 United Mine Workers of America, Dist. 12 v. Ill. State Bar Ass'n, 389 U.S. 217 (1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,40,54-55 United Transp. Union v. State Bar of Mich., 401 U.S. 576 (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40-41,54 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Sep. of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Walters v. Nat'l Assoc. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 xiv

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 16 of 86

Washington v. County of Rockland, 373 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Watters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Watts v. Day, 129 Fed.Appx. 227 (6th Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 We, Inc., v. City of Phila., 174 F.3d 322 (3d Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Weston v. Pa., 251 F.3d 420 (3d Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10,13,18 White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103 (3d Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,51 Woodruff v. Hamilton Twp. Pub. Schs., 2007 WL 1876491 (D.N.J. June 26, 2007) . . . . . . . . . 17 Worrell v. Henry, 219 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,34 Wright v. City of Phila., 409 F.3d 595 (3d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Zamboni v. Stamler, 847 F.2d 73 (3d Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Constitution, Statutes, and Rules U.S. Const, Amend I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim U.S. Const, Amend XIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim 10 Del. C. § 4010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,65 10 Del. C. § 4011(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 10 Del. C. § 4011(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 xv

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 17 of 86

Fed.R.Civ.P. 84. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sixth Cir. R. 206(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,39

Other Authorities F. Harper & F. James, Law of Torts § 25.1 (1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

xvi

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 18 of 86

NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS This is a civil action for compensatory and punitive damages and for injunctive relief for violation of plaintiff's right to the privacy of his personal medical information under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as retaliatory violations of plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff exercised his First Amendment rights to (1) speak out to the media and expose the illegal actions of corrupt public officials, (2) associate with his clients and file lawsuits against defendants, and (3) bring the bright light of public scrutiny upon the many misdeeds of corrupt public officials in a broken government where the system of checks and balances had failed. Defendants immediately retaliated against him for his protected activities by releasing his personal and confidential medical information to the news media and the general public, and by attacking his integrity and character in numerous defamatory newspaper attack ads. Plaintiff also asserts supplemental state law claims for defamation and invasion of privacy. (Compl. at ¶ 1). This case was filed on December 29, 2005. (D.I. 1). Because public corruption criminal cases then were pending against defendants Gordon and Freebery, this action was stayed on June 26, 2006. (D.I. 15). After defendants Gordon and Freebery entered guilty pleas to end their criminal cases in 2007, the nearly three year stay was lifted, and the parties stipulated to a briefing schedule on January 18, 2008. (D.I. 23). Then on March 25, 2008, defendants filed two motions to dismiss this case, asserting issues that should have been briefed three years ago. (D.I. 26-29). This is plaintiff's omnibus Answering Brief in opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss.

1

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 19 of 86

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 1. Under long established notice pleading standards, plaintiff has appropriately pled the conduct, time, place and persons involved in his claim to place the defendants on notice of the claims against them. 2. Defendants Gordon and Freebery are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy as well as his First Amendment right to be free of retaliation, each of which was clearly established. 3. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for violation of his constitutional right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment because he possessed a strong privacy interest in his medical information, there was potential for much harm from its widespread dissemination, and there was no governmental interest in disclosure outweighing plaintiff's interest. 4. Plaintiff also has stated a cognizable claim of retaliation for his protected activities under the First Amendment. He criticized defendants in the news media, associated with his civil rights clients, vigorously advocated their unpopular causes and petitioned for redress of grievances through litigation. Defendants' defamatory attack ads and widespread dissemination of plaintiff's medical information also would deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in such protected activity. 5. Plaintiff has suffered an actual injury which can be redressed by his requested relief. His claims are not moot because the damages, injunctions and declaratory judgment sought all are effective remedies. Therefore, he has standing to bring his claims, and the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate them. 6. Plaintiff's state law claims for defamation and invasion of privacy against defendants Gordon and Freebery as private citizens are not barred by the County and Municipal 2

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 20 of 86

Tort Claims Act, 10 Del. C. § 4010 et seq., because their publishing of attack ads and dissemination of plaintiff's private medical information were acts that were not within the scope of their employment and were performed with willful and malicious intent. 7. Finally, the incumbents sued in their official capacity are proper defendants in this civil rights lawsuit because they are necessary for plaintiff to obtain both relief on the merits and attorneys' fees from the governmental defendant. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Plaintiff. Plaintiff Thomas S. Neuberger ("Neuberger") is a veteran civil rights attorney who has practiced law in Delaware and nationally for more than 33 years. He enjoys an excellent reputation. He recently completed a three year term on the Lawyers' Advisory Committee of the Judicial Council of the Third Circuit, a position to which he was appointed by Chief Judge Scirica. Neuberger is well known for being a dedicated civil rights attorney who represents the "little guy." He specializes in helping the small and in need stand up to the powerful and corrupt. (Compl. at ¶¶ 3, 9-17). B. Defendants. Defendant Gordon was the County Executive of defendant New Castle County ("NCC"). (¶ 4). Defendant Freebery was the Chief Administrative Officer of NCC. (¶ 5). Defendants Coons and Singleton presently hold the positions of County Executive and Chief Administrative Officer, respectively, and are sued in their official capacities only. (¶¶ 6-7). Defendant NCC is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. (¶ 8). C. Plaintiff's Protected First Amendment Activity. 1. Speech to the Media and the Public Challenging Government Corruption and Illegality. Neuberger actively and publicly spoke out to members of the news media and 3

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 21 of 86

challenged numerous instances of corruption, fraud, wrongdoing, illegality and breach of the public trust by defendants while holding public office. In doing so, Neuberger sought to sound the alarm to the general public and electorate about defendants' illegal actions and breach of the public trust. (¶¶ 26-27). a. Defendants Were Enraged by this Speech to the Media and the Public. Defendants were humiliated, angered and enraged that Neuberger's speech to the public and the media was exposing their corrupt actions to the light of day and that they now would be held accountable by the electorate for their misdeeds. Defendants carry a personal vendetta against plaintiff because of this and have told family, friends, political mentors, employees and others that they will do everything in their power to inflict injury on and destroy Neuberger. (¶¶ 28-29). 2. Filing of Numerous Lawsuits Challenging Government Corruption. Since the late 1990's, Neuberger also has associated with clients and filed numerous civil rights lawsuits challenging Gordon and Freebery's illegal actions and their corruption of the Executive Branch of NCC government. (¶¶ 18-19). Those lawsuits include the following (¶ 19): · Downs v. Gordon, Freebery and New Castle County, C.A. No.99-210-MMS (D.Del.) (First Amendment free speech retaliation lawsuit by President of the Fraternal Order of Police challenging retaliation against him for refusal to engage in illegal activities at defendants' direction). Reyes and Hernandez v. Freebery, Cunningham and New Castle County, C.A. No.02-1283-KAJ (D.Del.) (Fourteenth Amendment discrimination lawsuit challenging institutional racism and racial profiling in the NCC Police Department and First Amendment retaliation against two Hispanic police officers).1 Maloney and Rendina v. Gordon, Freebery and New Castle County, C.A. No.03-999-KAJ (D.Del.) (First Amendment retaliation lawsuit on behalf of two former high ranking administrative aids to defendants who (1) reported The docket in the Reyes case is attached at Tab C. 4

·

·

1

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 22 of 86

defendants' criminal activity in county government, (2) went to the FBI, IRS and U.S. Attorney, (3) wore the wire for the FBI and U.S. Attorney, and (4) testified truthfully before the criminal grand jury investigating defendants' corruption of county government). · Riddell v. Gordon, Freebery, Cunningham, McAllister and New Castle County, C.A. No. 04-1201-KAJ (D.Del.) (First Amendment retaliation lawsuit on behalf of a County police officer and union official who challenged defendants and stood in the way of their illegal shenanigans). Tobin v. Gordon, Freebery, Cunningham, McAllister and New Castle County, C.A. No. 04-1211-KAJ (D.Del.) (First Amendment retaliation lawsuit on behalf of a County police officer who blew the whistle to the U.S. Attorney and grand jury about defendants' corruption of the police department and other illegal defense actions). Jamison v. Gordon, Freebery, Cunningham, McAllister and New Castle County, C.A.No. 04-1568 -KAJ (D.Del.) (First Amendment retaliation and age discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a police officer who refused to cover-up illegal activities in the police department). a. Defendants Were Enraged by the Filing of These Lawsuits. Defendants were humiliated, angered and enraged by Neuberger's representation of these many clients and by the fact that he filed these lawsuits against defendants and their handpicked corrupt police chiefs. These lawsuits revealed widespread illegal activity by defendants and their corruption of the NCC Police Department, which only angered defendants even more. Defendants carry a personal vendetta against plaintiff because of the filing of these lawsuits and have told family, friends, political mentors, employees and others that they will do everything in their power to inflict injury on and destroy Neuberger. (¶¶ 22-25). D. Defendants Retaliate Against Plaintiff. 1. The Release of Neuberger's Private and Confidential Medical Information. During the course of a court proceeding in the Reyes case on January 15, 2004, defendants became aware of certain confidential and hitherto private medical information about

·

·

5

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 23 of 86

Neuberger. Defendants were immediately barred by the U.S. District Court from disclosing, discussing or circulating this information in any way, shape or form. Despite and in violation of this Court Order, defendants immediately widely disclosed, disseminated and circulated plaintiff's private confidential medical information throughout the State of Delaware. (¶¶ 43-45). a. Release to the Media. For example, defendants released this information to the Delaware media and advised them that Neuberger was dying of a brain tumor and that this brain tumor was causing him to act erratically. Neuberger subsequently received humiliating inquiries from members of the Delaware news media about this false statement. At least one reporter told Neuberger that he had learned of this information only after defendants told him about it. However, Neuberger was barred from responding by a Court Order in the Reyes case, the same Court Order which defendants chose to ignore and instead violated. (¶¶ 4648). b. Release Throughout County Government. Defendants also widely discussed and circulated Neuberger's private and confidential medical information throughout NCC government and with numerous other individuals. For example, defendants regularly discussed Neuberger's private and confidential health information at County-wide Manager's Meetings. (¶¶ 48-50). c. Defendants' Intent in Releasing This Private and Confidential Personal Medical Information. In releasing plaintiff's private and confidential medical information, defendants intended to intimidate, punish, prevent and deter Neuberger from engaging in the First Amendment protected activity discussed above. (¶¶ 51, 82-84). 2. The Defamatory Newspaper Attack Ads. As part of their calculated effort to retaliate against, intimidate and injure Neuberger, in January 2004, defendants also took out 6

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 24 of 86

numerous full page attack ads in local Delaware newspapers. In these ads, defendants accused Neuberger of a host of misconduct, including, inter alia, violating federal court orders, unethical behavior and other wrongdoing. Several local newspapers subsequently wrote stories about the false accusations made against Neuberger in these ads. As a result, these false accusations were published to an audience of hundreds of thousands of readers. (¶¶ 34-35, 52). a. These Accusations Are False. Defendants published these accusations despite actual knowledge of their falsity. (¶¶ 36-38, 53-60). b. Defendants' Intent in Publishing These False Accusations. In publishing these false accusations, defendants intended to intimidate, punish, prevent and deter Neuberger from engaging in the First Amendment protected activity discussed above. (¶¶ 39, 8284). E. The First Amendment Rights of Plaintiff and His Clients Have Been Chilled by the Defense Retaliation. Because of defendants' retaliation, plaintiff has been chilled in his ability to exercise his First Amendment rights. As explicitly pled in the Complaint, plaintiff's ability to advocate his viewpoint has been significantly affected by defendants' retaliation against him. In the same way, the rights of plaintiff's clients also have been injured and chilled by defendants' retaliation against plaintiff. (¶¶ 75-78, 80-81). ARGUMENT I. STANDARD OF REVIEW A. Introduction. The defense motions betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the procedural posture of this case as well as the standard of review under which the Complaint must be examined. We are not in any post-trial briefing stage of the case, analyzing the most minute detail of evidence in a trial record. Cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. We are not at the summary judgment 7

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 25 of 86

stage, scouring the discovery record for evidence to match the prongs of our legal theories. Cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Instead, we are at the motion to dismiss stage under Rule 12(b)(6) where Rule 8(a)(2)'s notice pleading standards apply. As our District has repeatedly explained, "[w]hen deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, one must read Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) in conjunction with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), which establishes the requirements for adequately pleading a claim in federal court." Tillman v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., 2005 WL 2127820, *6 (D.Del. Aug. 30, 2005); Relational Funding Corp. v. TCIM Serv., Inc., 2002 WL 655479, *3 (D.Del. April 18, 2002). In a comprehensive, recent opinion, the Third Circuit recognized the same. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008). Reading Rule 12 in conjunction with Rule 8 is fatal to the defense claim that plaintiff has not adequately pled the elements of his legal theories. B. Rule 8(a)(2)'s "Extremely Lenient" Notice Pleading Standards. 1. Fair Notice is All That is Required. For more than fifty years, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the heightened pleadings standards defendants seek to foist upon the Court and instead unanimously has reaffirmed its long time holding that Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) indeed means what it very clearly says and that the Complaint must simply "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); accord Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007); Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 165-68 (1993); Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 351-353 (3d Cir. 2005). The Third Circuit has explained that this is an "extremely lenient" standard. Weston v. Pa., 251 F.3d 420, 430 (3d Cir. 2001). As the Third Circuit recently noted, motion to dismiss pleading standards "can be reduced to this proposition: Rule 8(a)(2) has it right." 8

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 26 of 86

Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234. The same Court warned against taking "an unduly crabbed reading of [a plaintiff's] complaint." Id. at 237. a. The Supreme Court's Illustration of Fair Notice. The nature and extent of these "extremely lenient," Weston, 251 F.3d at 430, standards of notice pleading are best illustrated by review of the example cited by the Supreme Court itself in the context of addressing a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. In Swierkiewicz, the Court explained that Rule 8(a)'s simplified notice pleading standards are "exemplified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Forms" which are "sufficient under the rules" in all respects. 534 U.S. at 513 n.4; accord Fed.R.Civ.P. 84. The Supreme Court looked to Form 9, which sets forth a form complaint for negligence which states in relevant part: On June 1, 1936, in a public highway called Boylston Street in Boston, Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff who was then crossing said highway. Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 513 n.4. Under Rule 8(a)'s notice pleading standard, this one sentence allegation on liability is sufficient to withstand a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. Id. In the same way, the first paragraph of plaintiff's Complaint herein is itself sufficient to withstand the defense motion. It states: This is a civil action for compensatory and punitive damages and for injunctive relief for violation of plaintiff's right to the privacy of his personal medical information under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as retaliatory violations of plaintiff's rights to freedom of association, free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff exercised his First Amendment rights to (1) associate with his clients, (2) speak out and expose the illegal actions of corrupt public officials, and (3) bring the bright light of public scrutiny upon the many misdeeds of corrupt public officials in a broken government where the system of checks and balances had failed. Defendants then immediately retaliated against plaintiff for his protected activities by releasing his personal and confidential medical information to the news media and the general public, and by attacking his integrity and character in numerous defamatory newspaper attack ads. (¶ 1). 9

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 27 of 86

These allegations alone are sufficient to withstand the defense motions. b. This Simplified Pleading System is Intended to Focus Litigation on the Merits of a Claim. As the Swierkiewicz Court explained, "[i]f a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice," 534 U.S. at 514, rather than move to dismiss as occurred Swierkiewicz, id. at 508 n.1, the proper approach is to instead "move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding." Id. at 514. Once the defendant is on notice of the claims against them, "claims lacking merit may be dealt with through summary judgment under Rule 56." Id. As the Supreme Court explained, this is the proper approach because the "liberal notice pleading of Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim." Id. Notice pleading "relies on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims." Id. at 512. 2. A Plaintiff Need Not Plead Facts to Match The Evidentiary Elements of His Legal Theory. As the Third Circuit held earlier this year, "[s]tandards of pleading are not the same as standards of proof." Phillips, 515 F.3d at 246. As the same Court has previously explained, "[c]omplaints need not plead law or match facts to every element of a legal theory." Weston, 251 F.3d at 429. In our District's words, "the federal rules do not require the plaintiffs to plead law or match facts to every element of a legal theory." Compaq Computer Corp. v. Inacom Corp., 2001 WL 789408, at *3 (D.Del. July 12, 2001) (internal punctuation omitted). The Supreme Court has held the same. See Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 511-12 (rejecting the defense claim that a plaintiff need even plead the elements of a prima facie employment

10

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 28 of 86

discrimination claim, because that is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading standard).2 In the same way, plaintiff is not required to plead each prong of any relevant evidentiary paradigms required to prove his case. Rather than plead evidentiary elements, the Third Circuit has "held that a civil rights complaint is adequate where it states the conduct, time, place, and persons responsible." Evancho, 423 F.3d at 353. In other words, all that is required is fair notice of the claim asserted which the Complaint clearly and abundantly provides. 3. A Plaintiff Need Not Plead a Legal Theory At All. In the same way, "Rule 8(a)(2) does not require a claimant to set forth any specific legal theory justifying the relief sought on the facts alleged." Compaq, 2001 WL 789408, *3; accord Kirkpatrick v. Merit Behavioral Care Corp., 128 F.Supp.2d 186, 191 (D.Vt. 2000). "Under the federal rules, as long as the issue is pled, a party does not have to state the exact theory of relief in order to obtain a remedy." Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 649 (3d Cir. 1989).3 This is because a "pleading is a vehicle to facilitate a proper decision on the merits and not a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive." Id. As one court has explained a complaint sufficiently raises a claim even if it points to no legal theory or even if it points to the wrong legal theory as a basis for that claim, as long as relief is possible under any set of facts that could be established consistent with the allegations.
2

Notably, in Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1973, the Supreme Court declined to overrule Swierkiewicz and its application in the civil rights context. In so holding, the Court explained that Swierkiewicz reaffirmed the longstanding rules of pleadings by rejecting the use of "heightened pleading standard[s]" in civil rights cases. Id. As the Third Circuit later explained, even after Twombly, "the notice pleading standard of Rule 8(a)(2) remains intact." Phillips, 515 F.3d at 233. Accord Al Makaaseb General Trading Co. v. U.S. Steel International, Inc., 412 F.Supp.2d 485, 500 (W.D.Pa. 2006); see Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Universal Ins. Co., 838 F.2d 612, 622 (1st Cir. 1988) ("Under Rule 8 ... [it] is not necessary to set out the legal theory on which the claim is based."); Flickinger v. Harold C. Brown & Co., 947 F.2d 595, 600 (2d Cir.1991) (federal pleading is by statement of claim, not by legal theory). 11
3

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 29 of 86

Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 977 F.2d 1129, 1134 (7th Cir.1992) (internal punctuation omitted). In light of this, it is not surprising that "claims need not specify in exact detail every possible theory of recovery, so long as they give fair notice of the claims to the defendants." Bibbins v. City of Baton Rouge, 489 F.Supp.2d 562, 577 (M.D.La. 2007). Key here is fair notice of the claim. The legal theories themselves may change or develop during the discovery process as the facts play out. "The legal theories upon which a plaintiff will rely at trial may be developed during the discovery process, refined at pretrial conferences, and tested by motion for summary judgment." Kirkpatrick, 128 F.Supp.2d at 191. 4. All a Complaint Must Do is State the Conduct, Time, Place and Persons Responsible. As stated above, rather than plead specific facts and legal theories, our Circuit has repeatedly "held that a civil rights complaint is adequate where it states the conduct, time, place, and persons responsible." Evancho, 423 F.3d 347; see, e.g. Boykins v. Ambridge Area Sch. Dist., 621 F.2d 75, 80 (3d Cir. 1980); Hall v. Pa. State Police, 570 F.2d 86, 89 (3d Cir. 1978); Price v. Carroll, 2008 WL 170530, *9 (D.Del. Jan. 17, 2008). In Hall, the Third Circuit reversed the district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a civil rights complaint. 570 F.2d at 88. The Court held that the complaint was sufficient to withstand the 12(b)(6) attack because the plaintiff has alleged the conduct violating his rights (racially discriminatory activity), time (March 17, 1976), place (King of Prussia) and those responsible (various state and bank officials). Id. at 89. As a result, the Court held that the complaint "is sufficiently precise to give notice of the claims asserted and withstand the defendants' challenge to its filing." Id. Similarly, in Boykins, the Third Circuit affirmed this precedent, holding that a civil rights complaint which alleged the conduct (racially motivated expulsion from the drill team), the time (1975), the place 12

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 30 of 86

(Ambridge Area School District high school) and the persons responsible (the coach and school administrators), was legally sufficient and that "no more is required." 621 F.2d at 80. This is still the law today. See Evancho, 423 F.3d 347 (citing Hall and Boykins); Price, 2008 WL 170530, *9 (same). Accordingly, as the Evancho opinion makes clear, to provide fair notice under Rule 8(a), a civil rights complaint merely must state the "conduct, time, place and persons involved. 423 F.3d at 553. 5. These "Extremely Lenient" Pleading Standards Apply in the Civil Rights Context. As the Third Circuit has explained, "[d]iscrimination and other civil rights claims are clearly subject to notice pleading." Weston, 251 F.3d at 429. Less than three months ago, our Circuit applied these notice pleading standards in the civil rights context. See Phillips, 515 F.3d 224. "[I]n federal civil rights cases, a claimant does not have to set out in detail the facts upon which a claim is based, but must merely provide a statement sufficient to put the opposing party on notice of the claim." Weston, 251 F.3d at 428; see Evancho, 423 F.3d at 351-353 (surveying the law and rejecting the defense claim that Rule 8 requires heightened pleadings standards for civil rights cases). The marching orders of the Supreme Court in both Leatherman and Swierkiewicz are clear: the notice pleading standard of Rule 8(a) applies in all civil actions, unless otherwise specified in the Federal Rules or statutory law. There is no federal rule or statute that prescribes a heightened pleading standard in § 1983 civil rights actions in which the defendant pleads a qualified immunity defense. Hence, we now make clear that which was implied in Evancho: a civil rights complaint filed under § 1983 against a government official need only satisfy the notice pleading standard of Rule 8(a), regardless of the availability of a qualified immunity defense. Thomas v. Ind. Twp., 463 F.3d 285, 295 (3d Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). Once again, notice is the key. 13

Case 1:05-cv-00916-TNO

Document 32

Filed 04/25/2008

Page 31 of 86

C. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Standards. In light of this, defendants clearly have a substantial burden to carry in seeking dismissal of the Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Courts must "accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Phillips, 515 F.3d at 233. "While Rule 12(b)(6) does not permit dismissal of a well-pleaded complaint simply because it strikes a savvy judge that