JAMES McGIRR KELLY, Judge
Before the Court is the Motion of Defendants to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, on in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement. Plaintiff's Complaint is a rather straight forward statement.
Plaintiff states that while she was stopped in the Philadelphia airport, she asked Police Officer Roger Tiller for assistance as to airport procedure for picking up arriving passengers. Plaintiff avers that defendant Tiller did not answer plaintiff's questions, but instead verbally abused her. He further issued Ms. Jopko a parking ticket. When plaintiff protested the treatment, she allegedly was subjected to abuse by defendant Tiller. He grabbed her finger, bent it and twisted it, causing her pain. He refused to release her finger and then pushed her against her vehicle and placed her under arrest. She was handcuffed, placed in a police vehicle and taken to a police station and placed in a cell. Plaintiff avers she was issued a criminal citation charging her with harassment. She appeared for a trial before a Municipal Court Judge in Philadelphia County and the criminal charge was dismissed.
Defendants claim that they need a more definite statement from the plaintiff and that the Complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules establish a liberal system of "notice pleading" for the purpose of providing the defendant with fair notice of the claim and the grounds supporting the claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) According to this liberal standard, complaints are only required to set forth a brief statement regarding the essential facts to establish liability. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (12); Conley, 355 U.S. at 47. The Rules instruct that pleadings will be "construed as to do substantial justice" and clearly reject the suggestion "that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(f); Conley, 355 U.S. at 48. This Complaint meets the liberal standard and is not subject to dismissal. Wright and Miller,Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1357. In the instant case, plaintiff complains of an unprovoked attack by a Philadelphia Police Officer, who according to the plaintiff's Complaint is an employee of the City of Philadelphia, which manages and directs and controls Philadelphia police officers. For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept "as true the facts alleged in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them". Unger v. National Residence Matching Program, 928 F.2d 1392, 1394-1395 (3d Cir. 1991 ) (quotingMarkowitz v. Northeast Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990).
The Court enters the following Order:
The Motion of Defendants to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, on in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement is DENIED.