PHILADELPHIA – A local woman has reiterated that the Philadelphia Police Department violated its own policies when it arrested her late father two years ago and failed to subsequently administer medical aid, leading to his death while in custody.
The Estate of Antonio Almanzar Perez (through Administratrix Biany Moronta) first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 22 versus the City of Philadelphia.
“On June 22, 2021, Antonio Almanzar Perez, plaintiff’s decedent, was arrested in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia. Almanzar Perez was a 68-year-old man with a history of drug abuse. Almanzar Perez had one leg, the result of being hit by a bus a few years before and walked with crutches as a result. He was elderly beyond his years, obviously fragile and not a threat to anyone but himself,” the suit said.
“He was without identification, but his physical condition and appearance, if anything, should have cried out for special attention. He was taken to the Round House, the now-former police headquarters at 7th and Race Streets, where he was placed in a jail cell with a cellmate. At some point in the evening, he began vomiting profusely and moaning in pain.”
The suit added the decedent’s cellmate reported yelling for guards for help for hours, because of his concern for Mr. Perez’s condition – but ultimately, no help arrived and the “vomiting and moans continued until at some point in the night Almanzar Perez died.”
“On June 23, 2021, when the cell was opened for its occupants to be taken to a preliminary arraignment, Antonio Almanzar Perez was found dead. An autopsy revealed a cause of death to be most likely multiple drug intoxication, which was known, or should have been known, by the arresting officers at the time of his arrest. Pursuant to Philadelphia Police Directive 7.8-1, every person taken into custody by the Philadelphia Police Custody is required to be given a ‘quick medical evaluation’ upon their arrest and a medical checklist completed by the officer. Detainees who appear to be under the influence of drugs are required to be placed in a holding cell, with inspection of them made every 10 minutes,” the suit stated.
“Philadelphia Police Directive 5.6 was also applicable – it indicates that anyone intoxicated and in a ‘semi-conscious’ state, indicating ‘incompletely conscious, imperfectly aware or responsive (indicating the inability to clearly and effectively communicate),’ should be brought immediately to the hospital for a medical evaluation. Plaintiff’s decedent lost his life during the several hours of deliberate indifference by the Philadelphia Police Department while his cellmate was yelling for help, because Almanzar Perez was continuously vomiting and moaning in pain. His death was discovered by his family when his daughter, the administratrix bringing this suit, began placing missing posters throughout Kensington, as she had not heard from him, and the Police Department called her and asked her to identify his body.”
On July 23, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
“The bulk of plaintiff’s allegations concerning City custom or policy are couched in generalized terms that say, at bottom, the City tolerates all manner of itemized misconduct, with no reference to any specific facts. The boilerplate nature of such allegations is apparent where, for example, plaintiff complains of indifference to ‘incarcerating citizens without probable cause’ or ‘psychologically and emotionally unfit persons serving as police officers.’ Plaintiff has not alleged he was subject to false arrest, or that some undescribed psychological problem with any unidentified Philadelphia Police Department employee contributed to Mr. Perez’s harm. Similarly, plaintiff alleges there is a ‘need for more or different training, supervision, investigation, or discipline,’ but…she fails to specifically identify how the training and supervision were inadequate. Plaintiff simply falls short of the pleading standard with such baldly conclusory statements,” per the dismissal motion, in part.
“In addition to these patently conclusory allegations, it must be acknowledged that plaintiff points to articles that do reference more specific misconduct by officers. For reasons discussed more thoroughly below, the misconduct actually raised in those articles could not plausibly support a finding of municipal liability here. Plaintiff, for example, notes only conclusory opinions describing a deficient disciplinary system, but fails to describe how they are deficient or with what relevance to this case. The Monell policy requirement, though, is ‘intended to distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of employees of the municipality, and thereby make clear that municipal liability is limited to action for which the municipality is actually responsible.’ Plaintiff asks the Court to reverse that analysis and nearly revert to a respondeat superior theory, albeit based on separate incidents: Because there has been misconduct, there is a deficient system. She fails to identify the deficiency. Tellingly, plaintiff skirts the actual, distinguishing facts contained in these articles, and resorts to out-of-context quotes evidencing only the opinion of certain observers. Again, the reference to these articles is a smokescreen and plaintiff is still pleading the Monell elements in conclusory fashion.”
UPDATE
Plaintiff counsel responded to the dismissal motion on Aug. 24, maintaining that deliberate indifference took place in this matter, as “plaintiff’s decedent was in his cell for several hours vomiting uncontrollably with his cellmate yelling for help before he was discovered dead, as no response whatsoever came from his warders.”
“Defendants claim that plaintiff has failed to allege a pattern of similar misconduct and is proceeding under a single incident theory. This is not accurate. Not only do the repeated examples of people in custody unable to receive even emergency medical care serve as multiple examples of the City’s deliberate indifference to the need to adequately train and discipline its officers discussed above, but they serve, along with others in plaintiff’s amended complaint, to allege a pattern of similar misconduct in the Police Department along with the Department of Prisons,” per the response brief.
“The defendants’ final argument suggests that the complaint fails because it does not allege conduct by a decision maker under Monell. To the contrary, the complaint does connect defendants’ policy and practice of deliberate indifference to specific policy-makers, including Police Commissioner Outlaw. Fortunately, plaintiff is now able to identify these individuals due to the Philadelphia Inquirer articles. Thus, secrecy was not only a component of the policy and practice of deliberate indifference itself, but it also helped to shield those who engaged in the policy and practice. And to the extent that other relevant policy-makers exist, what steps have defendants undertaken to shield their identity to this day? Plaintiff believes it is disingenuous for defendants to argue that the plaintiff has not alleged conduct by specific policy-makers when defendants themselves have engaged in a policy and practice of secrecy and obfuscation to keep those policy-makers, and their policies, hidden.”
For counts of violating the decedent’s rights under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiff is seeking total damages in excess of $300,000, inclusive of punitive damages and in addition to costs of court and reasonable attorney’s fees.
The plaintiff is represented by Evan S. Shingles and Lionel Camillo Artom-Ginzburg of Shingles & Shingles, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Andrew Pomager of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-02407
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com