WILLIAMSPORT – Northumberland County and its corrections co-defendants have won dismissal of a complaint alleging that staffing at the county jail was inadequate and ineffective, leading the plaintiff’s daughter to commit suicide when she found herself incarcerated at the facility on drug charges.
Timothy McAndrew (as Administrator of the Estate of Meghan McAndrew, deceased) of Paxinos first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on May 26 versus Northumberland County of Sunbury, plus Bruce Kovach, Samuel J. Schiccatano, Joseph M. Klebon, Kymberley L. Best, and James Hoskin of Coal Township, and John Does 1-6.
“Upon information and belief, on Feb. 6, 2022, Ms. McAndrew was taken into custody pursuant to a bench warrant and lodged in the Northumberland County Jail. Ms. McAndrew was a known drug user and had a history of convictions for drug-related offenses in Northumberland County, including pending drug charges at the time of her death. During the intake process at Northumberland County Jail, Ms. McAndrew should have been screened for physical and psychological problems to determine whether she posed a suicide risk,” the suit said.
“On Feb. 6, 2022, and at all times through Feb. 11, 2022, personnel at Northumberland County Jail were required to keep Ms. McAndrew safe and free from physical injury, harm or death, were required to screen and evaluate Ms. McAndrew on an ongoing basis, were required to be trained on the method and means of evaluating persons placed in custody to keep them safe from physical or psychological injury, harm or death, and were required to screen and evaluate the mental status of persons placed in custody, including for substance abuse disorders.”
The suit followed up that said screening process at the Northumberland County Jail was “inadequate, incomplete and ineffective”, since Ms. McAndrew was placed on suicide watch and was therefore required to be checked every 15 minutes while she detoxed from illicit substances.
The decedent was last observed to be alive on Feb. 10, but was found unresponsive in her cell the following morning, with a sheet around her neck that she used to strangle herself. Though she was transported by ambulance to Geisinger-Shamokin Area Community Hospital, she was pronounced dead.
“Upon information and belief, Ms. McAndrew was not observed at all for a period of approximately three hours, until she was found unresponsive in her cell on Feb. 11, 2022. Despite prison requirements that detainees in cells be checked periodically, no corrections officers (COs) adequately and/or sufficiently checked on or monitored Ms. McAndrew prior to her untimely demise. At all times relevant to this matter, defendants should have properly monitored Ms. McAndrew, on an ongoing basis, due to the fact that she was detoxing from illicit substances. Defendants placed Ms. McAndrew in segregation from the rest of the prison population, even though such action is not recommended for someone who is potentially suicidal,” the suit stated.
“Ms. McAndrew was not placed into a suicide prevention cell. According to prison officials, at full staff, the Northumberland County Jail would have 78 COs working the floor. On Feb. 6, 2022 through Feb. 11, 2022, the Northumberland County Jail only employed approximately 34 COs. Defendants failed to hire enough COs to ensure Ms. McAndrew’s safety. The Northumberland County Commissioners described the Northumberland County Jail as in ‘a state of emergency’ due to the low number of COs. At all times relevant hereto, defendants failed to provide the proper staffing, manpower and/or medical facilities to properly care of prisoners like Ms. McAndrew.”
The defendants followed up with a motion to dismiss the complaint on Aug. 23, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims are replete with a lack of specificity.
“Plaintiff does not identify who the Monell claim (Count I) is made against, however, Warden Bruce Kovach, and Commissioners Schiccatano, Klebon, Best are specifically referenced within this Count. Plaintiff does not identify who the ‘Medical Defendants’ are in Count III. Count I must be dismissed for lack of factual specificity and personal involvement as to Northumberland County, Warden Bruce Kovach, Commissioners Schiccatano, Klebon, Best and Hoskin,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“Count II (Monell claim) must be dismissed since the individual defendants were not personally involved in addition, plaintiff failed to plead an underlying constitutional violation or proof that those individuals have, through their decisions, ‘caused the deprivation of rights at issue by policies which affirmatively command that it occur or by acquiescence in a longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the ‘standard operating procedure’ of the local governmental entity. Furthermore, Count II must be dismissed since plaintiff failed to identify a failure to provide specific training that has a causal nexus with his injuries and must demonstrate that the absence of that specific training can reasonably be said to effect the deliberate indifference whether the alleged constitutional deprivations occurred.”
Additionally, the defendants demanded that Counts III, IV and V (Medical negligence, wrongful death and survival) must be dismissed, since those causes of action do not fall under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, and the plaintiff did not submit a certificate of merit.
UPDATE
In a memorandum opinion issued on Jan. 25, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Matthew W. Brann granted a dismissal of all claims without prejudice.
“Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. For the purposes of this Court’s jurisdiction, the Eighth Amendment constitutional violation claim is the most important. After analyzing the Eighth Amendment claim within the appropriate framework, the Court finds that the complaint must be dismissed. While the Court regrets Ms. McAndrew’s premature demise and the challenges this tragedy has likely presented to her father, the Court must abide by the law, and the complaint – as currently drafted – does not survive the Rule 12(b)(6) standard,” Brann said.
Brann added that a plaintiff bringing a claim arising from a jail suicide must show: (1) That the individual had a particular vulnerability to suicide, meaning that there was a strong likelihood, rather than a mere possibility that a suicide would be attempted; (2) That the prison official knew or should have known of the individual’s particular vulnerability; and (3) That the official acted with reckless or deliberate indifference, meaning something beyond mere negligence, to the individual’s particular vulnerability.
“Mr. McAndrew alleges that ‘Ms. McAndrew was placed on suicide watch in [the jail] because she was a known drug user,’ and that ‘she was to be checked every fifteen minutes due to a concern that she would commit suicide.’ These facts – particularly that jail staff decided to place Ms. McAndrew under suicide watch – taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. McAndrew, demonstrate that Ms. McAndrew had a particular vulnerability to suicide. The complaint’s allegations satisfy the first prong,” Brann said.
“As discussed with respect to the first prong, the complaint alleges that the jail placed Ms. McAndrew under suicide watch because she was a known drug user and therefore more likely to commit suicide while detoxing from illicit substances. The jail’s decision to classify Ms. McAndrew as a detainee on suicide watch demonstrates that the jail administrators who made that decision had subjective knowledge of Ms. McAndrew’s particular vulnerability to suicide, and subjective knowledge satisfies the Third Circuit’s standard, which – as discussed above – a actually requires less in order for this prong to be satisfied.”
However, Brann also found that the complaint’s allegations did not show that the defendants’ conduct went beyond mere negligence, into the realm of deliberate and reckless actions.
“In the case at bar, it is plausible that defendants’ alleged conduct was negligent – i.e., that they owed a duty of care to Ms. McAndrew and breached that duty of care in not checking on her every 15 minutes – but it is implausible to find that they were recklessly or deliberately indifferent to the her need. Assuming that the complaint’s allegations attribute the lapse in monitoring to the fact that the Jail was understaffed, and assuming that defendants were aware that the CO shortage would lead to such lapses, the facts pleaded in the complaint still do not allege that defendants responded unreasonably,” Brann said.
“Jail staff did monitor Ms. McAndrew, just with longer intervals of time in between each visit – and while the harm (Ms. McAndrew’s death) was not ultimately averted, the allegations at most demonstrate that defendants breached their duty to ensure that Ms. McAndrew was checked on every 15 minutes. It is not conscience-shocking that a handful of COs could not monitor inmates as closely as a full roster of COs would have been able to during a period when the jail was fully staffed. The fact that the County and its Commissioners were aware that the jail was operating with a CO shortage is also not conscience-shocking standing on its own, though it does raise concerns about the risk of negligence inevitably brought about by such reduced manpower to monitor detainees and inmates. While understaffing is a regrettable bureaucratic reality in jails and prisons in this country, it does not on its own rise to the level of deliberate or reckless indifference.”
Brann explained that without “more allegations plausibly serving as a ‘causal nexus’ between the County’s knowledge of the CO shortage and Ms. McAndrew’s suicide, the Court cannot make that leap.”
“While the alleged conduct of defendants, and certainly the tragic outcome here, are serious, the facts as alleged do not show anything more than negligence. Because Mr. McAndrew’s complaint fails to sufficiently plead facts demonstrating that defendants’ violated Ms. McAndrew’s Eighth Amendment rights, defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim is granted,” Brann stated.
Brann concluded that the County defendants were further entitled to qualified immunity, on the grounds of the constitutional violation not being proven, and on account of the federal constitutional claims being dismissed, the Court could likewise not exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to the state law claims.
For counts of violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Monell claims, medical negligence, wrongful death and survival, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $75,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, plus interest, costs and attorney’s fees.
The plaintiff is represented by Franklin E. Kepner Jr. and Franklin E. Kepner III of Kepner Kepner & Corba, in Berwick.
The defendants are represented by Christine E. Munion of William Devlin & Associates, in Blue Bell.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:22-cv-00834
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com