From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bensinger v. Fanrock

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Dec 1, 1999
Civil Action No. 99-2208 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 1999)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 99-2208.

December 1, 1999.


MEMORANDUM


Presently before this Court in this Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is Defendants Valliere Fanrack, Martin, Sgt., and Konamann, Sgt.'s ("Defendants") Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The Defendants' Motion will be assessed under the same standard as a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6). See Constitution Bank v. DiMarco, 816 F. Supp. 154, 156 (E.D.Pa. 1993).

In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the district court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1420 (3d Cir. 1997). While a motion to dismiss may be treated as one for summary judgment if "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court," Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the court may not consider items of information presented in briefs or memoranda of law without presentation in affidavit form, see Kramer v. Scientific Control Corp., 365 F. Supp. 780, 786 (E.D.Pa. 1973) (Bechtle, J.).

However, in light of the fact that Defendants have failed to supply the Court with any matters outside of the pleadings, the Court is not able to treat Defendants' Motion as one for Summary Judgment and therefore, will deny the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings because, contrary to Defendants' contention, Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, Defendants' Motion is denied.

A pleading by a pro se plaintiff is held to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by a lawyer, and the Courts have an obligation to construe pro se pleadings more liberally. Hughes v. Roe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980).

An appropriate Order follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 1999, upon consideration of Defendants Valliere Fanrock, et al's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Plaintiff Bruce Bensinger's response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is DENIED.


Summaries of

Bensinger v. Fanrock

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Dec 1, 1999
Civil Action No. 99-2208 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 1999)
Case details for

Bensinger v. Fanrock

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE BENSINGER, Plaintiff, v. VALLIERE FANROCK, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 1, 1999

Citations

Civil Action No. 99-2208 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 1999)

Citing Cases

Pellegrino Food Products Co. v. City of Warren

A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) and a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule…