ALLENTOWN – Lancaster County argues it should be dismissed from a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a local woman, who witnessed her schizophrenic and bipolar son being shot to death by a local police officer.
Miguelina Pena (individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Ricardo Munoz, deceased) first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 8 versus the City of Lancaster, County of Lancaster, Lancaster Chief of Police Jarrad Berkhiser, Officer Karson Arnold and unknown police officers. All parties are of Lancaster.
“On Sept. 13, 2020, at around 4 p.m., defendant Arnold responded to a call involving Ricardo Munoz, who was experiencing a mental health crisis. Upon arrival to Ricardo’s home, defendant Arnold, with no plan and without waiting for backup, alone approached Ricardo’s home,” the suit stated.
“Reacting to defendant Arnold’s presence, Ricardo went from the basement of his home where he had been doing his laundry, to his bedroom upstairs and retrieved a knife that he had kept for self-defense. Ricardo then exited his home, at which time he was immediately shot by defendant Arnold two times. Even after Ricardo had already been shot twice and had been neutralized, defendant Arnold fired his gun into Ricardo two more times. Defendant Arnold killed Ricardo.”
The suit alleged that Ricardo was known by city and county authorities to be suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, was having a mental health crisis and never directly threatened Arnold – and that the officer failed to first attempt to use less-lethal force in subduing Ricardo, such as a taser or bean bag gun.
“After defendant Arnold shot Ricardo, other police officers arrived at the scene. Upon information and belief, the unknown police officers had no special medical training and yet intervened to prevent Ricardo from getting emergency medical attention by cancelling the ambulance that had previously been dispatched to the scene,” per the suit.
“Video provided by neighbors shows them begging the police officers at the scene to immediately call an ambulance and asking why no medical professionals had been called to assist and to try to preserve Ricardo’s life. The Lancaster coroner pronounced Ricardo’s time of death as 6:35 p.m. Between 4 p.m., when defendant Arnold shot Ricardo and 6:20 p.m., the defendants failed to provide emergency medical services in an attempt to preserve Ricardo’s life.”
Additionally, the suit noted that in the 911 call which led to Arnold appearing at Ricardo’s home, his sister specifically informed the dispatcher that the only assistance required was to “bring Ricardo to the hospital.”
Furthermore, the suit accused the Lancaster Police Department of failing to conduct internal investigations into or discipline officers who use excessive force and have paid millions of dollars to settle such litigation in the past.
UPDATE
Lancaster County filed to dismiss the case against it with prejudice on April 9, citing a failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“In Count III, plaintiffs allege Lancaster County failed to property train their 911 dispatchers and had a policy, practice, or custom which violated Munoz’s constitutional rights. But, plaintiffs, however, failed to sufficiently allege a violation by any County employee, or assert a Monell claim against the County,” the dismissal motion read, in part.
“Here, plaintiff brings a claim pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. To state a Section 1983 claim for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, ‘a plaintiff must show that a ‘seizure’ occurred and that it was unreasonable.’ Most importantly, it is axiomatic that a plaintiff in a Section 1983 action ‘must show that each and every defendant was ‘personally involved’ in depriving him of his rights.’ Plaintiff failed to tie a County employee to this alleged constitutional harm. As such, Count III must be dismissed with prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs failed to plead the requisite factual detail to establish a Monell claim. Plaintiffs failed to connect a policy or custom which led to the constitutional deprivation. Plaintiffs’ complaint admits the dispatchers warned police that Munoz was suffering a mental health episode. The constitutional harm is the death of Munoz; however, there is no custom or policy linking the County to his death.”
Likewise and for similar reasons, Lancaster County argues the plaintiffs’ Monell claim for unreasonable denial of medical care, should also be dismissed, as a constitutional violation was allegedly not shown.
Additionally, Lancaster County contends that the suit’s negligent hiring, training, and supervision claim and civil rights claims should also be dismissed.
“Here, plaintiffs fail to allege that the County hiring decisions of unknown 911 dispatchers would lead a reasonable policymaker to conclude that the plainly obvious consequence of the decision to hire the applicant would be the deprivation of a constitutional right. Plaintiffs fail to allege which specific hiring of a 911 dispatcher would lead a constitutional deprivation,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Plaintiffs further fail to identify the inadequate scrutiny taken by the County in hiring these unnamed 911 dispatchers. The complaint is utterly devoid in establishing any sort of Monell liability based upon hiring decisions. As such, to the extent that Count V is based upon Monell liability, it must be dismissed.”
For multiple counts of excessive use of deadly force, Monell municipal liability – policy and practice, unreasonable denial of medical care, negligent hiring, training supervision and monitoring, state law claims of battery, wrongful death and civil rights violations, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, state law intentional infliction of emotional distress and unlawful detention, the plaintiff is seeking general damages, special damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, additional damages and injunctive relief connected to related actions in the case, plus such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Michael R. Perna and Ryan G. Borchik of Perna & Abracht in Kennett Square, and Daisy Ayllon, Julie Ann Murphy and Steven M. Levin of Levin & Perconti, in Chicago, Ill.
The defendants are represented by John P. Gonzales of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in Philadelphia, plus David J. MacMain and Samantha Ryan of The MacMain Law Group, in West Chester.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:21-cv-00590
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com