PITTSBURGH – A federal court has granted a partial dismissal of claims connected to the COVID-19-related death of a defensive lineman for Pennsylvania Western University California, in 2020.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Christy Criswell Weigand issued a memorandum opinion on Aug. 4, which dismissed with prejudice civil rights claims against the University defendants and/or Student Association, Inc., connected to supposed violations of the due process rights of the decedent, Jamain Allen Stephens.
Stephens, 20, passed away from COVID-19 in September 2020, shortly after returning to campus for the Fall 2020 semester. Stephens was a scholarship football player at the California University of Pennsylvania (now known as Pennsylvania Western University California or PennWest California).
The administrator of Stephens’ estate, Katelyn D. Edwards, claims that the defendants – the school, entities involved in its off-campus housing and other individuals – should have prevented Stephens’ death. Some of Edwards’ claims were predicated on alleged violations of Stephens’ federal substantive due process rights, while the others sound in state law.
“In a prior opinion, the Court dismissed Edwards’ substantive due process claims with leave to amend, holding that she had failed to allege an essential element of those claims: conduct by defendants that ‘shocks the conscience.’ The Court also deferred consideration of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Edwards’ state law claims given the deficient allegations in the claims raising a federal question,” Wiegand stated.
“Edwards filed an amended complaint on April 28, 2023. Now before the Court are three motions to dismiss filed by: (1) PennWest California, Geraldine M. Jones, Gary W. Dunn and Karen Hjerpe (collectively, the ‘University defendants’), (2) Student Association, Inc. (SAI) and (3) Greystar Student Living Management Services, LLC. Because Edwards has again failed to plausibly allege conduct by defendants that ‘shocks the conscience’, the Court will grant in part those motions and dismiss with prejudice Edwards’ substantive due process claims. The Court will again defer consideration of Edwards’ state law claims, pending resolution of the claims against the sole defendant yet to appear in this action – Jared Shiner. Therefore, the Court will deny without prejudice the motions to the extent that they target Ms. Edwards’ state law claims.”
Wiegand explained in her rationale that “whether conduct shocks the conscience depends on the circumstances.”
“Edwards argues that defendants exhibited deliberate indifference in several related ways. She maintains that despite being aware of the risks posed by COVID-19 in August 2020, football players were ‘required’ to return to campus without defendants having implemented ‘adequate policies and procedures,” Wiegand said.
“For example, she faults the school for not cancelling football activities, for having players live in shared housing with inadequate ventilation and insufficient room for social distancing, for failing to provide cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment, and for failing to test students for COVID-19 or otherwise check them for symptoms. Edwards also points to the ‘far more extensive’ and ‘superior’ COVID-19 mitigation plans put in place for the Spring 2021 return to campus as indicative of deliberate indifference in August 2020.”
Wiegand added that the “fundamental flaw” in Edwards’ argument is that it “ignores the affirmative actions that defendants took to address the risk of COVID-19 to students like Stephens in August 2020.”
“Indeed, her allegation that ‘PennWest California took absolutely no steps to prevent or mitigate the spread of COVID-19,’ is contradicted by numerous other allegations in her amended complaint. First, the school moved to remote learning for the Spring 2020 semester. Second, it planned to reopen for the Fall 2020 semester only with several precautions in place including masking, social distancing, and enhanced cleaning. Third, the school ultimately decided to keep campus closed for the Fall 2020 semester and continue with remote learning, citing increasing cases. Fourth, it prevented students from returning to on-campus housing, minimizing the number of persons that those students living in off-campus housing would come into contact with,” Wiegand said.
“Fifth, it required that student athletes like Stephens be screened for COVID-19 before participating in team activities. Sixth, it ceased formal football practices, and only allowed the team to practice informally, in groups of five or six. Seventh, although Edwards alleges that there was no social distancing between Stephens’ and his roommate, she does acknowledge that there were only two residents in Stephens’ four-person suite. These allegations show that defendants did not ‘disregard’ the risk posed by COVID-19. To the contrary, the allegations demonstrate evolving actions taken by defendants in response to changing circumstances and information.”
Though admitting the school “could have implemented a stringent contact tracing and testing regimen or implemented masking protocols, like it did for the Spring 2021 semester”, Wiegand said this did not change the outcome relating to Edwards’ claims, and, at most, her “allegations may rise to the level of negligence.”
“Because Edwards has not plausibly alleged conduct that shocks the conscience, she has failed to state a claim under Section 1983 for a violation of Stephens’ substantive due process rights. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Counts III, IV and V against the University defendants and SAI. The dismissal will be with prejudice because granting leave to amend would be futile in light of Edwards’ failure to plausibly allege conscience shocking conduct after having her original complaint dismissed on that basis. Here, the Court has original jurisdiction over Counts III, IV, and V because those claims raise a federal question under Section 1983 regarding Stephens’ substantive due process rights,” Wiegand stated.
“As explained above, however, the Court will dismiss with prejudice those claims against the University defendants and SAI. The only other defendant named in those counts is Jared Shiner, who has not appeared in this action. The Court is inclined to sua sponte dismiss those counts against Shiner, given that Edwards does not distinguish between his conduct and that of the other defendants in her amended complaint. However, before doing so, the Court will provide Edwards an opportunity to ‘respond to the perceived deficiencies’ in her Section 1983 claims against Mr. Shiner only. Accordingly, the Court will defer a decision on whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Edwards’ state law claims. If the Court ultimately dismisses the federal claims against Shiner, it will have dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction and remanding Edwards’ state law claims would be supported be considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness.”
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00086
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com