PHILADELPHIA – A trio of corrections defendants have won partial dismissal of counts from litigation brought by the parents of a pre-trial detainee, who was assaulted and killed by individuals he was incarcerated with more than two years ago.
Eva Diaz and Frankie Diaz (as Administrators of the Estate of Frankie Diaz Jr.) first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 17 versus the City of Philadelphia, Warden Pierre LaCombe, Prison Commissioner Blanche Carney and John Doe Corrections Officers 1-10.
“On or about Aug. 18, 2020, Frankie Diaz was a pre-trial detainee at the Detention Center in Philadelphia. During his detention while awaiting trial, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, Diaz had contracted COVID-19. Diaz had struggled with drug addiction over the course of his live, including being addicted to heroin. While incarcerated, Diaz had several fights and disagreements on his block which amounted to a group of inmates, including but not limited to Inmate Adam Tann, PP#1032771 making and acting on threats to harm the plaintiff’s decedent, all facts of which the defendants, in particular COs 1-10, were aware both from their actual experience and observations, and from being told by the plaintiff’s decedent and/or other inmates or correctional officers,” the suit said.
“Despite these concerns, the City acting through defendant LaCombe and John Doe Corrections Officers 1-10, continued to place Diaz on the prison block which was substantially understaffed with the group of inmates and/or individuals who they had knowledge presented a threat to Diaz’s health and safety. Approximately one week before Aug. 18, Diaz was involved in a significant fight and/or altercation with the above referenced group of individuals, including Adam Tann, again of which the defendants, in particular Corrections Officers 1-10, were aware as set forth above. On Aug. 18, 2020 Diaz was on the cell block in the shower area of Section 303 dormitory when he was attacked by Adam Tann and upon information and belief, a group of individuals which whom he had prior altercations with. The shower area was unguarded, or in the alternative the guards in that area did nothing to intervene in the attack.”
The suit added that no corrections officers intervened in the ultimately fatal melee.
“When Diaz was attacked, he screamed for help but no Correctional Officers were present, or in the alternative, those present refused and/or failed to intervene in deliberative indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s decedent was violently assaulted and suffered significant injuries including bilateral nasal fractures, contusions, bruising and swelling around his left eye, numerous lacerations to the right forehead and left upper and lower lips, left periorbital purple ecchymosis, a focal right frontal subscapular hemorrhage, focal subcutaneous soft tissue hemorrhage at the left posterior angle of the neck and left sternocleidomastoid muscle, and a large subarachnoid hemorrhage with diffuses cerebral edema as a result of the trauma. Plaintiff’s decedent was found some indeterminate amount of time later by correctional officers, upon information and belief one of more of the correctional officers who was supposed to be guarding the shower and who is identified herein as Correctional Officers 1-10,” the suit stated.
“He was found on the ground, unresponsive and not breathing and was rushed to Aria Jefferson Hospital where attempts at revival were made, care was rendered, and the plaintiff’s decedent was ultimately pronounced death on Aug. 19, 2020. It is alleged and averred that this assault had been overheard by other inmates, however, no guards were present, or in the alternative, those that were present ignored the altercation and the plaintiff’s cries for help. Inexplicably the shower – a common area for assaults to occur – and a dangerous area – was free of any guards whatsoever at the time of the attack and it was not until the plaintiff’s decedent was already dead that guards arrived.”
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice on Sept. 8, for alleged failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“First, plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims based on the alleged failure to protect and/or to intervene to stop the fatal inmate-on-inmate assault fail, because the complaint contains only conclusory allegations, which are inadequate to plead that any individual corrections official knew of and ignored a specific threat to plaintiffs’ Decedent’s safety and thus was deliberately indifferent to a significant risk of serious harm,” according to the dismissal motion.
“Second, the Complaint fails to set out factual allegations supporting the liability of Commissioner Carney or Warden LaCombe as policymakers, or the municipal liability of the City under Monell. Third and finally, the state-law negligence claim asserted against the City is barred by the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.”
The motion added that the complaint “lacks non-conclusory allegations from which it can be plausibly inferred that any corrections officer or other City official was knowledgeable and deliberately indifferent to any specific threats to plaintiffs’ decedent’s safety.”
On Oct. 31, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Eduardo C. Robreno granted the defense’s motion and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice.
In response to Robreno’s dismissal, an amended version of the complaint was filed on Dec. 27, naming Corrections Officers Nicole Taylor, Denise Wood and Wanda Britford, along with John Doe Corrections Officers 4-10.
On Jan. 10, the defendants filed their second motion to dismiss, for failure to state municipal and supervisory liability claims upon which relief could be granted.
“To be sure, the amended complaint contains additional allegations regarding the inmate-on-inmate assault at issue in this case, which allegations may well give rise to a plausible failure-to-intervene claim under Section 1983 against the newly-named individual named corrections officers, defendant Officers Nicole Taylor, Denise Wood, and Wanda Britford. For this reason, the moving defendants (defendants City of Philadelphia, Warden Pierre LaCombe and Prison Commissioner Blanche Carney), do not seek dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety,” the renewed dismissal motion stated.
“But because the amended complaint does not contain additional allegations remedying the deficiencies previously identified by this Court as to plaintiffs’ supervisory and municipal liability claims, Moving defendants now seek dismissal of those claims with prejudice. Specifically, the allegations in the amended complaint do not establish a plausible claim that the City of Philadelphia – or Commissioner Carney or Warden LaCombe, as alleged policymakers for the City – engaged in a deliberately indifferent course of conduct in failing to hire corrections officers, or in otherwise understaffing facilities of the Philadelphia Department of Prisons. Accordingly, the claims against moving defendants – which are premised on such a theory of liability – should be dismissed with prejudice.”
Defendants Britford, Taylor and Wood answered the complaint on Jan. 25, denying the plaintiffs’ allegations as conclusions of law and providing several affirmative defenses on their own behalf.
“Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Plaintiffs’ decedent’s own negligence and/or wrongful conduct caused or contributed to his alleged injuries, sufferings and/or damages. Plaintiffs’ decedent’s alleged injuries, suffering, and/or damages were the result of conditions that were pre-existing, or otherwise unrelated to any conduct on the part of answering defendants,” the moving defendants’ answer stated.
UPDATE
An April 20 memorandum opinion from Robreno saw Count I of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint dismissed as to defendants Carney and LaCombe, and Count II of plaintiffs’ amended complaint dismissed in full.
“Plaintiffs contend that they only need to allege that the City failed to take reasonable measures to ensure appropriate staffing levels to state a plausible claim for relief and argue that they have satisfied that bar.
Understaffing, in theory, could be the basis for a viable Section 1983 claim: knowledge of a custom of understaffing and the pattern of harm that results to inmates and COs when prisons are understaffed puts the City on notice that a failure to act under certain circumstances could result in constitutional violations,” Robreno said.
“However, plaintiffs have not pleaded sufficient facts to support a claim that there was a custom of understaffing in place at the time of decedent’s death, nor sufficient facts to give rise to a plausible claim that the City was deliberately indifferent in failing to achieve proper staffing levels. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted.”
Robreno found that although the defendants “generally had some supervisory and managerial responsibility, [the plaintiffs] have not sufficiently alleged that these defendants themselves acted in an unconstitutional manner” and “have not alleged that Warden LaCombe knew of the risk to Decedent’s health or safety and acted with deliberate indifference in ‘continuing to place Diaz on the prison block which was substantially understaffed” – or that Carney “was aware of the understaffing problem and of injuries to inmates.”
“Here, plaintiffs argue that, because there is ‘understaffing’ of Philadelphia prisons, inmates have been harmed, and the City is aware of both the ‘understaffing’ and the risk of harm to inmates. According to plaintiffs, the fact that the City has not hired more COs to fill a large number of vacancies must mean that the City has adhered to a course of conduct or has otherwise adopted some unofficial policy,” Robreno stated.
“Because plaintiffs do not supply sufficient facts as to the staffing levels before or at the time of decedent’s death, the Court cannot determine how long the City has been on notice of the constitutional violations that may arise when prisons are understaffed.”
For counts of survival, wrongful death and negligence, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $150,000, including interest, delay damages, costs of suit, general and specific damages, including both survival and wrongful death damages, attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1985 and 1988 and any other damages legally appropriate at the time of a jury trial.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin P. O’Brien of Stampone Law, in Cheltenham.
The defendants are represented by Kathryn Faris and Adam Ross Zurbriggen of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-03286
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com