PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has dismissed without prejudice claims from a man incarcerated at the Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Center, who insisted that prison officials ignored the prior conduct of two fellow inmates with a propensity for violent behavior, who attacked the plaintiff with a homemade weapon last summer.
Anthony Autry first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 19 versus the City Of Philadelphia, Prison Commissioner Blanche Carney (in her individual and official capacities), Warden Pierre LaCombe (in his official capacity), Deputy Warden William Vetter (in his official capacity) Correctional Officer Romando Nicholls (in his individual and official capacities) and John Doe Correctional Officers Nos. 1-10. All parties are of Philadelphia.
“At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff was an inmate at PICC, a prison in the Philadelphia Prison System. On or about Thursday, Aug. 11, 2022, plaintiff was assigned to Cell No. 24 on block H1. Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee. Plaintiff was also confined in the Philadelphia Prison System pursuant to a Pennsylvania Department of Corrections state parole detainer. Kevin Wingfield and Nibri Watson were both inmates in the Philadelphia Prison System on or about Aug. 11, 2022. On the same date, Wingfield and Watson were housed together in PICC Cell No. 26 on block H1,” the suit said.
“On the same date, defendant Corrections Officer Romando Nicholls was assigned to monitor block H1 for the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift. At all times relevant to this action defendants Nicholls, Carney, LaCombe, Vetter and John Doe Correctional Officers Nos. 1-10 were employed by defendant City of Philadelphia. On the same date, at approximately 8:33 p.m., plaintiff was attacked by inmates Winfield and Watson. Plaintiff was stabbed with an unknown object. Plaintiff was transported to the medical unit at PICC. Due to the extent of his injuries, plaintiff was then transported to Jefferson-Torresdale hospital. Plaintiff suffered multiple injuries.”
The suit added that among his severe injuries, the plaintiff suffered a deep laceration approximately six inches in length to his left eye and two deep puncture wounds approximately two inches in depth to his back, wounds which respectively required sutures and stitches to close.
“Following the attack on plaintiff, a search was conducted of the trash can on the top tier of block H1 and one homemade weapon approximately seven inches long was recovered. Following the attack on plaintiff, a search was conducted of Wingfield and Watson’s Cell No. 26 and one homemade weapon approximately four inches long was recovered from the toilet bowl. Prior to the attack on plaintiff, inmates Wingfield and/or Watson engaged in conduct that required them to be kept separate and segregated from other inmates like plaintiff, yet no action was taken. The City of Philadelphia has a history of understaffing and failing to protect inmates like plaintiff from known, dangerous inmates, failing to monitor inmates for inmate safety and failing to ensure that security protocols are being followed to ensure inmate safety,” the suit stated.
“As a result of the prior conduct of Wingfield and/or Watson, defendants knew inmates Wingfield and/or Watson had a propensity to attack other inmates like plaintiff. As a result of the prior conduct of Wingfield and/or Watson, defendants knew or had reason to know inmates Wingfield and/or Watson would attack plaintiff and did nothing about it. On the same date and time, defendant City of Philadelphia did not properly train and/or supervise defendant Nicholls and defendant Correctional Officers John Does #1-10 how to properly discipline an inmate, and/or did not properly train and/or supervise its staff of correctional officers generally.”
The named defendants motioned to dismiss the case in its entirety on May 23, for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“Although plaintiff alleges that ‘prior to the attack on plaintiff, Inmates Wingfield and/or Watson engaged in conduct that required them to be kept separate and segregated from other inmates like plaintiff,’ plaintiff fails to provide any supporting factual details, such as the conduct that Wingfield and/or Watson engaged in, why the conduct required them to be kept separate and segregated, who within PDP had knowledge of this prior conduct, and when prior to the attack the conduct in question occurred. Further, although plaintiff alleges that defendant Nicholls was assigned to monitor the areas where plaintiff, Wingfield and Watson were housed that day, the complaint lacks any non-conclusory allegations that Nicholls knew Winfield and Watson posed a danger to plaintiff,” the dismissal motion said.
“Nor does plaintiff allege in a non-conclusory fashion that defendant Nicholls was present for the actual attack, that Nicholls had a realistic opportunity to intervene more quickly than he did or that Nicholls refused to intervene more quickly than he did despite the clear opportunity for him to do so. Although plaintiff also brings claims against defendants Carney, LaCombe and Vetter, plaintiff’s complaint is lacking in specific allegations as to each of their personal participation in the incident specifically involving plaintiff. Finally, while plaintiff brings a Monell claim against the City of Philadelphia, that claim is based on dissimilar previous alleged incidents that lack any connection to plaintiff’s injury and on boilerplate and conclusory allegations concerning an alleged failure to discipline, supervise, and/or train.”
In a June 6 response to the dismissal motion, counsel for the plaintiff remarked that the defendants “now ask this Court to excuse them from liability for the attack on plaintiff, despite their abject failures.”
“Defendants do not contest that the named defendants are ‘persons acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage’ of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Rather, defendants argue that plaintiff’s claims fail on the merits. This Court should deny defendants’ motion to dismiss for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to allege personal liability (rather than vicarious liability as the defendants suggest) against Commissioner Carney, Warden LaCombe and Deputy Warden Vetter because each is liable for their own actions in maintaining a custom of understaffing, failing to protect inmates, failing to train prison staff and failing to supervise prison staff in deliberate indifference to the rights of detainees; (2) Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to allege Section 1983 liability against defendant Correctional Officer Romando Nicholls,” the response brief stated.
“(3) Monell liability arguments are prematurely raised by defendants, as issues related to understaffing, the failure to train, and the failure to protect present factual disputes that are not proper for deciding at the motion to dismiss stage; (4) Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to demonstrate Monell liability as defendants maintained a custom of understaffing, failing to train, and failing to protect in deliberate indifference to the rights of detainees, including plaintiff; (5) Plaintiff pled a sampling of historic cases showing a pattern of understaffing, failing to train, and failing to protect throughout the Philadelphia Prison System including PICC; and (6) Precedent does not require plaintiff to state specific training practices and protocols when alleging a failure to train or supervise claim.”
The plaintiff added that “defendants Carney, LaCombe and Vetter were personally involved in the decision-making as it pertains to inmate placement, inmate classification, security policies, and safety policies at PICC, including the decision to place Wingfield and Watson in protective detention custody” and “were deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk Wingfield and Watson posed to the plaintiff, and failed to take reasonable measures to guarantee the plaintiff’s safety.”
UPDATE
On Oct. 10, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Paul S. Diamond granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, without prejudice.
“[In order] to make out a Section 1983 claim, plaintiff must allege that each individual defendant was personally involved in the wrongful conduct alleged. Allegations of respondeat superior will not suffice. Rather, plaintiff must plead facts that establish that supervisors ‘directed the alleged violation or had actual knowledge of the violation and acquiesced to it.’ Plaintiff makes no specific allegations as to any individual defendant. Rather, he alleges only that ‘defendants’ knew of and were deliberately indifferent to’ the risks posed by inmates Wingfield and Watson. He further alleges that inmates Wingfield and Watson ‘engaged in conduct that required them to be kept separate and segregated, yet no action was taken.’ Plaintiff fails to explain, however, what that conduct was or how each defendant acted wrongfully or with wrongful knowledge. Accordingly, I will dismiss the claims against these defendants without prejudice,” Diamond stated.
“Plaintiff has [also] failed to allege adequately a wrongful City policy or custom. Plaintiff accuses the City of a failure to train correctional officers and a failure to supervise inmates. Plaintiff states that there is a ‘history of correctional officer employees failing to…ensure known, dangerous inmates are kept in segregation,’ and that the City has ‘adopted and maintained for many years, a recognized and accepted policy, custom and/or practice of failing to properly train…its employees including the [named defendants].’ These conclusions are not supported with any factual assertions, however. Plaintiff also fails to identify a pattern of similar constitutional violations that would require the City to implement new training or programs under Johnson. Although plaintiff briefly alleges a history of inmate violence in Philadelphia prisons and less-than-promptly-provided medical treatment, he does not make out a pattern or policy of fostering violence or deliberate indifference. In these circumstances, I will dismiss plaintiff’s claims against the City without prejudice.”
Diamond went on to also dismiss the claims lodged against Nicholls and the doe defendants.
“Plaintiff brings a failure to protect and failure to intervene claim against Nicholls and 10 John Does. Neither is plausible. The Eighth Amendment imposes a ‘general duty on prison officials to protect inmates from violence by other prisoners.’ To make out a failure to protect claim, plaintiff must allege that the ‘corrections officers acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.’ Deliberate indifference here requires an officer both to ‘know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.’ To properly make out a Section 1983 failure to intervene claim, plaintiff must allege that corrections officers had a ‘reasonable opportunity to intervene and simply refused to do so. Plaintiff’s complaint contains no factual allegations that Officer Nicholls or John Does 1-10 knew of and disregarded an excessive risk. Instead, plaintiff again relies on conclusions such as ‘defendants knew or had reason to know inmates Wingfield and/or Watson posed a danger to other inmates like plaintiff.’ He notes ‘prior conduct,’ but fails to identify the prior conduct or how any of the defendants would know about it. This is insufficient to make out a failure to protect claim,” Diamond said.
“Plaintiff alleges that Nicholls was assigned to the cell block where the attack occurred, but he fails to allege that Nicholls saw, heard, or in any way witnessed the attack. He thus fails to allege that Officer Nicholls had a ‘reasonable opportunity to intervene.’ The complaint is even more threadbare as it pertains to John Does 1-10: Plaintiff alleges only that these unnamed persons were ‘warden(s), sergeant(s), or correctional officers…responsible for ensuring the safety and security of inmates…at PICC.’ That is insufficient to make out a failure to intervene. In sum, I will dismiss plaintiff’s claims against Nicholls and John Does 1-10 without prejudice. I will dismiss without prejudice plaintiff’s claims against Prison Commissioner Blanche Carney, Warden Pierre Lacombe, Deputy Warden William Vetter, Correctional Officer Romando Nicholls, John Doe Correctional Officers 1-10 and the City of Philadelphia.”
Diamond further ordered that the plaintiff had until Oct. 31 to file an amended complaint.
For counts of Monell liability and violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $150,000, together with delay damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The plaintiff is represented by Brian J. Zeiger of Levin & Zeiger, and Lauren A. Wimmer of Wimmer Criminal Defense, both in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Danielle B. Rosenthal of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01501
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com