ALLENTOWN – Lancaster County has been 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.
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.
UPDATE
In a memorandum opinion issued Jan. 5, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania Jeffrey L. Schmehl found that Lancaster County should indeed be dismissed from the case – finding that the plaintiff did not “show a deprivation of a constitutional right, and that the constitutional deprivation was caused by a person acting under the color of state law.”
“Plaintiff asserts that the County’s policies, practices, customs, and training, along with their ‘apparent agents,’ the City’s police officers, were responsible for Ricardo’s death. Further, plaintiff argues that the County and City ‘were engaged in a joint venture in responding to the 911 call,’ the police ‘would not have been at the scene and would not have responded in the way [they] did but for the County’s instructions and direction,’ the County ‘failed to dispatch a crisis intervention team,’ and failed to ‘place a hazard on the family’s home for future service calls,” Schmehl said.
“Nevertheless, plaintiff fails to point to any County employee who had personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing – the shooting – nor does plaintiff point to any policy, practice, custom, or training deficiency that the County had in place that was involved with the shooting. The County of Lancaster does not employ the City of Lancaster’s police officers or anyone who was at the scene of the shooting. The County’s only involvement in this case is the actions of their 911 dispatchers who dispatched the police to the scene and provided information to the police in doing so. The dispatchers had no personal involvement in the later shooting of Ricardo.”
Schmehl added that it was “not the County’s purview, who only employs the 911 dispatchers, to determine whether City police should carry non-lethal equipment” and that the County “may not be held responsible for the tactical decisions of City police officers who are at the scene of an incident.”
“Accordingly, plaintiff concedes to the dismissal of two of the four counts against the County and the Court dismisses the remaining two Monell counts against the County, because the County did not have an employee who had personal involvement in the alleged constitutional harm, the shooting of Ricardo, nor did the County have a policy, practice, custom or training deficiency that caused the police to shoot Ricardo. Therefore, the County’s motion to dismiss is granted and the County is dismissed from the case,” Schmehl stated.
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 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 David J. MacMain, Christine C. Einerson and Janelle E. Fulton 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