PHILADELPHIA – Delaware County and three corrections officials have motioned to dismiss litigation against themselves, other corrections officers and health care providers over charges that an inmate at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility wasn’t protected from assault by another inmate, despite credible information he was to be the target of a hit and wasn’t provided medical treatment after surviving such an attack.
Anthony Pierre of Thornton filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on June 20 versus Delaware County (doing business as “George W. Hill Correctional Facility), Warden Laura K. Williams, Deputy Warden of Programs & Support Dele Faly, Deputy Warden of Operations & Administration Lisa Mastroddi, Corrections Officers K. Moore and G. Blee, Classification Officer Mike Moore, Sergeant Hamre, Sergeant Sicolle and Sergeant Richbert, all of Thornton, plus Jessamine Healthcare, Inc., Jessamine Healthcare, Inc. (doing business as “Correct Care Solutions, LLC/Wellpath, LLC”), Correct Care Solutions, LLC/Wellpath, LLC, Dr. Nancy Doe and Nurse Haitan, all of Nashville, Tenn.
“On March 22, 2022, plaintiff was an inmate at George W. Hill Correctional Facility. Plaintiff was in solitary confinement and was informed by defendant Hambre, there was a credible hit on plaintiff, and they wanted to move him to a safer location. On March 24, 2022, defendants Moore and Sicolle were assisting with the transfer of plaintiff. Plaintiff was told by defendant Moore that if he wanted to leave solitary confinement, he had to pick up food trays,” the suit said.
“While plaintiff started to pick up the food trays, defendant Moore improperly opened two inmates’ cells. As plaintiff’s back was turned to pick up the food trays, he was attacked by one of the inmates. The inmate also threw water on plaintiff which caused him to slip and fall during the physical altercation. Plaintiff’s fall caused him to sustain injuries to his right knee and right leg.”
The suit clarified that it is standard procedure for every inmate to be handcuffed when they exit their cell in solitary confinement, yet neither the plaintiff, nor the other two inmates, were handcuffed at the time of the altercation.
“Upon information and belief, defendants Moore and Sicolle knew or should have known about plaintiff’s credible hit and failed to properly protect plaintiff. Following the incident, plaintiff went to medical for his injuries, but they told him he wasn’t injured and sent him back to his cell. The following day, plaintiff woke up with intense swelling of his right knee and sharp pains to his right leg. Plaintiff also had extreme difficulty with standing and walking,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff asked to be seen by medical, but defendant Richbert refused. On March 31, 2022, plaintiff was eventually able to see defendant, Dr. Nancy Doe, who told plaintiff that he had a swollen tendon. Defendant Haitan provided Motrin and informed plaintiff that he would order X-Rays. To date, no X-Rays have been scheduled. Plaintiff continues to suffer from his injuries that occurred on March 22, 2022. Plaintiff still suffers from tendon pain and is unable to exercise or play basketball. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe physical and emotional distress as a result of defendants’ conduct.”
On July 29, Delaware County and co-defendants Williams, Faly and Mastroddi filed to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, citing federal claims being pled and improper service upon some of the defendants.
“Counts I and II of plaintiff’s complaint alleges a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has original jurisdiction over these federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. All alleged events set forth in the complaint took place in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Therefore, venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a). Named defendants Sicolle and Richbert are not employees of the County. And to the extent that these individuals were misidentified by plaintiff, they would have been employees at the time of the incident set forth in the complaint,” per the removal notice.
“The Sheriff’s Affidavit claims that he/she served Sicolle and Richbert, two unknown individuals, by leaving the complaint with the Warden. Service upon defendants Sicolle and Richbert was improper and defective. In order for service of process upon an authorized agent to be effective, the party asserting the validity of process needs to demonstrate that the agent had either implied or express authority to accept process. The Warden did not have express or implied authority to accept service on behalf of defendants Blee, Hamre, Sicolle or Richbert. There is also an issue of law as to whether the Warden had express or implied authority to accept service on behalf of the former GEO Group employees who became County employees, post-incident. No other named party has been properly served at the time of this removal.”
UPDATE
Counsel for Delaware County, Faly, Williams and Mastroddi filed a motion to dismiss the case on Aug. 8, arguing that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Reform Litigation Act of 1995 and failed to plead adequate causes of action, among other deficiencies.
“Because plaintiff is currently incarcerated, the PLRA’s exhaustion requirements applies to all claims asserted in his complaint. Defendants must establish that Pierre failed to exhaust because exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Defendants can easily meet this burden based on the pleadings before the Court. The complaint fails to allege that Pierre made any attempt to exhaust his administrative remedies. Thus, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the PLRA,” per the dismissal motion, in part.
“Under the Eighth Amendment, prison officials have a duty to ‘take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates’ and ‘protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.’ However, prison officials are not liable for every injury caused during an inmate-on-inmate assault. A prison official cannot be found liable for failure to protect an inmate unless the official was deliberately indifferent to the risk. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth a plausible claim that defendants Williams, Faly and Mastroddi each (1) was subjectively aware that the act of plaintiff being transferred from solitary confinement for his own protection posed a substantial risk of serious harm; (2) was knowingly exposed and deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk to plaintiff’s health and safety; or (3) caused the assault and injuries associated with the March 24, 2022 assault.”
For counts of violating the Eighth Amendment for failing to protect and failing to provide medical care against cruel and unusual punishment, plus negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages, individually, jointly and/or severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000, including punitive damages, and further relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and just, including attorney’s fees and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by David A. Berlin and Matthew A. Weisberg of Weisberg Law in Morton, plus Gary A. Schafkopf of Schafkopf Law, in Bala Cynwyd.
Defendants Delaware County, Williams, Faly and Mastroddi are represented by Jeffrey M. Scott of Archer & Greiner, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-02989
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2022-004140
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com