PHILADELPHIA – A prison contractor has discounted liability for injuries that a Philadelphia man suffered in an alleged assault and battery incident by corrections officers, after visiting his girlfriend in custody at George W. Hill Correctional Facility in Delaware County.
Mutatie Johnson of Philadelphia first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on March 11 versus The GEO Group, Inc., GEO Re-Entry Services, LLC, GEO Corrections and Detentions, LLC, GEO Correctional Holdings, Inc. and Community Education Centers, Inc. of Boca Raton, Fla., plus John Doe Correctional Officers, of Chester Heights.
“In or about 1997, responsibility for operation of the George W. Hill Correctional Facility was transferred from Delaware County to a private for-profit prison company, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation. In or about 2003, Wackenhut changed its name to The GEO Group, Inc. On Dec. 31, 2008, GEO pulled out of operations of the George W. Hill Correctional Facility citing ‘underperformance and frequent litigations.’ A new for-profit prison contractor, CEC, took over operation of the facility,” the suit said.
“Upon information and belief, when CEC took over for GEO, the same management, including the warden and chief of security remained in charge of George W. Hill Correctional Facility. Upon information and belief, defendants collectively continue to operate the George W. Hill Correctional Facility and continue to employ the individuals who staff the facility. On the March 13, 2020, plaintiff was an inmate in custody at George W. Hill Correctional Facility. Plaintiff was searched after completing a visit with his girlfriend for contraband.”
At the conclusion of the search, the suit said, defendant Does attacked the plaintiff without justification, swarming him and beating him with their hands and feet. The
unprovoked attack put the plaintiff in fear of bodily injury and caused him to suffer injuries, along with violating his constitutional right to be free from excessive, unreasonable and unjustified force.
The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 7, due to complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.
UPDATE
On June 15, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint which completely denied liability for Johnson’s injuries, and provided 23 separate affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has not demonstrated deliberate indifference to his rights, civil or constitutional, and therefore has not stated a sufficient claim under Section 1983. He has alleged merely conclusory allegations in this regard which cannot sustain his claims. Plaintiff may not have filed this cause of action within the appropriate time provided by the applicable statute of limitations or provided the required notice to answering defendants,” per those same defenses.
“Plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent it may seek punitive damages, violates answering defendant’s rights to procedural and substantive due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the answering defendants’ rights to protection from excessive fines as provided for in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I Section VIII of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Any and all claims of the plaintiff are barred by the doctrines of consent and/or privilege. Negligence is an insufficient basis upon which to find liability against the answering defendants. If plaintiff has suffered any injury, which answering defendants deny, then this injury was caused by the acts and/or omissions of the plaintiff and not by the acts and/or omissions of answering defendants.”
The filing added that the plaintiff was not deprived of any civil or constitutional rights or protections by answering defendants or as a result of any policy, practice, custom or usage of the answering defendants, and that the plaintiff’s claims do not rise to the level of the deprivation of civil rights.
For counts of assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, vicarious liability negligence, negligent hiring, retention and supervision, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, together with punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by Kevin V. Mincey and Riley H. Ross III of Mincey Fitzpatrick Ross, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Matthew H. Fry and Robert M. DiOrio of DiOrio & Sereni, in Media.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-02224
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 220301306
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com