Joslyn Dallas v. Thomas Assenmacher et al.

Dallas v. Assenmacher · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · February 23, 2026 · No. No. 24-1882

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in Joslyn Dallas’s § 1983 action arising from her removal from a SEPTA bus and subsequent tasering. The court dismisses the conspiracy, false arrest, assault and battery claims with prejudice, finding insufficient conspiracy allegations and probable cause for arrest based on defiant trespass. The court dismisses the Monell claim against SEPTA without prejudice and grants leave to amend, while noting that the excessive force claims against the individual officers were not challenged.

Holdings

  1. The complaint did not plausibly allege a conspiracy because the allegation that two officers obeyed a sergeant's command during a violent altercation, without more, did not establish an agreement, understanding, or meeting of the minds to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
  2. The false-arrest claims failed because the facts alleged in the complaint established probable cause to arrest Dallas for defiant trespass as a matter of law.
  3. The assault and battery claims were dismissed because Plaintiff did not oppose their dismissal.
  4. The complaint did not plausibly allege that an unconstitutional SEPTA policy or custom, or a deliberately indifferent failure to train, supervise, or discipline, was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional injury.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the officers' coordinated conduct during the arrest.
  2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a § 1983 false-arrest claim where the officers allegedly had probable cause to arrest Dallas for defiant trespass.
  3. Whether the assault and battery claims should be dismissed where Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal.
  4. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged municipal liability against SEPTA under Monell based on an unconstitutional policy or custom or failure to train, supervise, or discipline.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (32)

  • Wolfington v. Reconstructive Orthopaedic Associates II PC, 935 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Revell v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210–11 (3d Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009)(followed)
  • Kelleher v. City of Reading, No. 01-3386, 2002 WL 1067442, at *7 (E.D. Pa. May 29, 2002)(followed)
  • Miller v. Goggin, 672 F. Supp. 3d 14, 53 (E.D. Pa. 2023)(followed)
  • Gale v. Storti, 608 F. Supp. 2d 629, 635 (E.D. Pa. 2009)(followed)
  • Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 634 (3d Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Orsatti v. New Jersey State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 483 (3d Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 514 (3d Cir. 2003)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 32.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…