ALLENTOWN – A federal judge has dismissed with prejudice litigation from pre-trial detainees at Berks County Prison who alleged their constitutional rights were violated when the prison was locked down due to a COVID-19 outbreak.
On March 25, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Edward G. Smith ruled to throw out a lawsuit from plaintiffs William Johnakin and Chris Young, versus defendants Prime Care Medical, the Berks County Jail System, Warden Jeffery Smith and Chief Deputy Warden Stephanie Smith.
“The plaintiffs were pretrial detainees in a county jail when they claim that inmates in the jail who were working in the kitchen contracted COVID-19, causing the jail to commence a lockdown. They assert that neither the jail, nor the private company performing medical services at the jail, were equipped to properly handle COVID-19. They also appear to be upset that no one at the jail informed them of the precise reason for the lockdown,” Smith said.
“The plaintiffs have now brought claims for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the jail, the private medical provider, the warden, and the chief deputy warden. They sought millions of dollars in damages because they believe they are at risk of contracting COVID-19 and were not notified of the COVID-19 outbreak. They have also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”
However, Smith determined that the plaintiffs would not be able to proceed with their claims against the county jail, because it is not a proper party to be sued under Section 1983.
Additionally, Smith found that claims against the private medical company and prison officials do not succeed because the plaintiffs did not assert that any constitutional violations were caused by a custom or policy, and that the plaintiffs never alleged that they were injured while at the jail.
“Although the plaintiffs have named the Berks County Jail System as a defendant, they may not assert a Section 1983 claim against this defendant. As evidenced by a review of the statute, Section 1983 ‘applies only to persons. [Additionally,] the plaintiffs fail to allege that they suffered a constitutional injury due to a policy or custom of Berks County. Indeed, they do not even allege that they contracted COVID-19 or suffered any injury at all. Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to allege a plausible claim and the Court will dismiss their official capacity claims against the warden and deputy warden,” Smith said.
“Other than list the warden and deputy warden in the caption of the complaint and in the list of defendants, the plaintiffs assert no factual allegations against them. Additionally, and as previously noted, the plaintiffs do not allege that they contracted COVID-19 or suffered any other injury. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have failed to state a plausible claim seemingly solely on the ground that these defendants hold supervisory positions at the Berks County Prison.”
Smith concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice, since any attempt at amendment would be futile.
“Concerning the plaintiffs’ claims against the warden, deputy warden and Prime Care, amending the complaint would be futile because a reviewing court must defer to the expertise of both medical officials and jail administrators, and not assume a constitutional defect where concrete action has been taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic as constitutional rules ‘are not subject to mechanical application in unfamiliar territory.’ Thus, where a detention facility has taken concrete steps toward mitigating the medical effects of COVID-19, an incarcerated person will fall ‘well short’ of establishing that the facility and its staff were deliberately indifferent toward his medical needs in light of the virus even though they cannot entirely ‘eliminate all risk’ of contracting COVID-19, notwithstanding even serious pre-existing medical conditions the prisoner may have,” Smith stated.
“Because the plaintiffs fail to allege any injury from the COVID-19 outbreak at the Berks County Prison and concede that the Berks County Prison has taken steps toward mitigating the spread of COVID-19, even though they believe those steps to have been inadequate, any attempt at amendment to state a plausible claim based on an outbreak of COVID-19 at Berks County Prison would be futile.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:21-cv-05366
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com