PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has dismissed several counts from a lawsuit brought by a Philadelphia woman who alleged she was wrongly arrested for a road rage incident involving her daughter, denied medical care and as a result, had a seizure while in custody.
Angernette Jacobs first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 17 versus the City of Philadelphia, Det. James Koenig, Det. Williams, John Doe Medical Staff and a John Doe Police Officer. All parties are of Philadelphia.
“On or about June 11, 2022, plaintiff’s daughter, Alecia Jacobs, was alleged to have been a part of a road rage incident in Philadelphia, PA, at or near the intersection of 17th and Chestnut Streets. During the road rage incident, the alleged victims took pictures of Alecia Jacobs. Admittedly, plaintiff and her daughter look very much alike; however, plaintiff is obviously much older than her daughter. Plaintiff was not on the scene on June 11, 2022, during the alleged road rage incident between her daughter and the alleged victim,” the suit stated.
“Based upon information and belief, defendant Koenig interviewed the victims of the alleged road rage incident. Based upon information and belief, defendants Koenig and Williams were given the above-mentioned photographs of Alecia Jacobs by the alleged victims. Based upon information and belief, defendants Koenig and Williams obtained copies of the drivers’ license photographs from PennDOT for both Alicia Jacobs and plaintiff. Defendant Koenig intentionally obtained a false arrest warrant for plaintiff, even though he was in possession of a picture of Alecia Jacobs as the doer of the road rage incident.”
The suit continued that on June 21, 2022, defendant John Doe Police Officers executed a warrant for plaintiff and when she was taken into custody, she informed the John Doe defendants that she had a seizure disorder and needed to take anti-seizure medicine.
“When plaintiff was taken into custody, John Doe defendants refused to allow plaintiff to take anti-seizure medicine and/or bring the anti-seizure medicine with her to the police station. Plaintiff had been seizure-free for approximately a year before the incident. Further, at the time plaintiff was arrested, she was wearing pajamas. Plaintiff asked if she could get dressed before going to the police station and John Doe Police Officers refused to allow her to get dressed. Plaintiff was transported to Police Headquarters at 7th and Race Streets in Philadelphia, PA, for processing. While at the Round House, plaintiff begged for anti-seizure medication from defendant John Doe, but was refused all medication. Further, plaintiff was very cold at the Round House and asked John Doe for a blanket, but was refused,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff had a seizure at the Round House. As a result of the seizure, plaintiff urinated all over herself and the cell. As a result of the seizure, plaintiff suffered severe injuries to her neck, back, shoulders and knees. John Doe refused to offer plaintiff a change of clothing or any medical help regarding the seizure. Plaintiff was embarrassed and humiliated due to the seizure and urinating on herself. Plaintiff asked for medical care for the seizure from John Doe, but was denied medical care. After plaintiff was arraigned, her family transported her from the Round House directly to the hospital.”
Defendants City of Philadelphia, Koenig and Williams filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted on June 15 – specifically, requesting that the Court dismiss Count I of the plaintiff’s complaint against Detectives Koenig and Williams and all claims against the City of Philadelphia, with prejudice.
“Count I of plaintiff’s complaint alleges that she was denied medical care for a seizure she experienced while in police custody, in violation of her constitutional rights. However, plaintiff’s complaint does not allege defendants Detective Koenig and Detective Williams participated in plaintiff’s arrest or had any interaction with her during the time she was in custody. Accordingly, there are no factual allegations to support plaintiff’s assertion that defendants Detectives Koenig and Williams are liable in their individual capacities for allegedly depriving her of the medical care she needed following her arrest. As such, this Court should dismiss Count I of plaintiff’s complaint against defendants Detective Koenig and Detective Williams,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“To prevail against the City of Philadelphia, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish that (1) A constitutionally protected right has been violated; and (2) The alleged violation resulted from a municipal policy, custom, or practice of deliberate indifference to rights of citizens. Once a Section 1983 plaintiff identifies a municipal policy or custom, he must ‘demonstrate that, through its deliberate conduct, the municipality was the ‘moving force’ behind the injury alleged.’ Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege the existence of any policy, practice or custom implemented by the City, much less that the injuries she claims were the result of such a policy. Thus, plaintiff’s complaint includes no factual allegations that could establish the City’s liability under a Monell theory. As such, all claims against the City of Philadelphia should be dismissed.”
On June 19, plaintiff counsel responded to the City’s dismissal motion, both on Count I of failure to protect and denial of medical care and on the City’s defense of itself through an argument predicated upon Monell liability (though the plaintiff brought no such Monell claim).
“In the matter at bar, plaintiff properly pled a failure to protect and denial of medical care claim against the defendant City of Philadelphia. Plaintiff laid out more than enough facts to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff averred she told the initial arresting police officers she had a seizure disorder and asked to take her medication with her for processing. Her request was ignored. Plaintiff averred she asked police officers at the Round House for anti-seizure medication, but again her pleas were ignored. Plaintiff averred that after she had a seizure at the Round House, she was denied medical care. Plaintiff has averred more than enough facts to survive in the instant motion. The defendants’ motion regarding Count I against defendant City of Philadelphia should be denied,” the response brief stated.
“Plaintiff alleged in her complaint an unconstitutional custom – the City of Philadelphia had a de facto policy, of not providing anti-seizure medicine to inmates once on notice of a seizure disorder and not providing medical care for a pre-trial detainee even after being told of a seizure by the pre-trail detainee while in custody. Here, the defendants denied plaintiff medication from the time of her arrest until the time of her arraignment. Plaintiff averred that she asked for anti-seizure medicine from John Doe defendant when she was arrested, and she asked for anti-seizure medicine from John Doe defendants when she was being held at the Round House. Her requests were ignored and denied. Eventually, she had a seizure, urinated on herself, was not given any care by the defendant and was transported to a local hospital by her family. A custom of a constitutionally defective systematic policy by the municipality will survive a motion to dismiss.”
According to the plaintiff, she asked for medication and medical help, but “the systematic process for pretrial detainees requesting medical care is clearly defective, and the City of Philadelphia has not tried to fix the defects.”
“The City of Philadelphia’s motion to dismiss on Monell grounds grossly misses the mark. Plaintiff has averred sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss – she has alleged a systematic custom of denial of medical care. Alternatively, the City of Philadelphia has been jointly sued in a myriad of cases alleging deficient medical services to inmates at PPS. If the Court is inclined to grant defendant City of Philadelphia’s motion on a Monell theory even though plaintiff did not plead a Monell count in her complaint, plaintiff asks for a leave of Court to file an amended complaint to lay out the vast instances of deficient medical care provided to inmates by the PPS. In the second alternative, after defendants Koenig and Williams make their initial disclosures, plaintiff will learn the identities of the John Doe defendants and amend the complaint at that time,” the response brief stated.
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gerald J. Pappert granted the motion and dismissed several counts from the action, in a memorandum ruling on Aug. 30.
“Jacobs fails to plead any City of Philadelphia policy, practice or custom. She even admits in her response that she did not plead a Monell claim but nonetheless argues that her complaint alleges that the City of Philadelphia had an ‘unconstitutional custom’ or ‘de facto policy’ of not providing anti-seizure medicine to inmates once on notice of a seizure disorder, and not providing medical care for a pre-trial detainee after a seizure occurs. Jacobs does not point to any formal City policy relating to her claims but argues that she has ‘alleged a systematic custom of denial of medical care,” Pappert said.
“However, Jacobs’s only alleged evidence of a custom is that unnamed City employees did not provide her with medical care or protect her well-being. Jacobs does not identify any other instances where she or anyone else was denied medical care. A single offense by a lower level employee ‘does not suffice to establish either an official policy or a custom.’ Jacobs also fails to allege who the policymaker is for the City of Philadelphia. Count I against Koenig and Williams and Counts II and III against the City of Philadelphia are dismissed with prejudice. Count I against the City is dismissed without prejudice.”
For counts of failure to protect and denial of medical care, unconstitutional seizure of a person, malicious prosecution, through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages against defendants for such sums as would reasonably and properly compensate him for injuries in excess of $150,000, together with delay damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The plaintiff is represented by Brian J. Zeiger of Levin & Zeiger, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Benjamin T. Jackal of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01880
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com