PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has partially dismissed counts from litigation initiated by a local woman who alleged that Bucks County and a number of its corrections officials had failed to ensure its prison was free of drugs, which she said led one of her loved ones to fatally overdose while in custody.
Valeria Corbin (as Administrator of the Estate of Joshua Patterson) of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 21 versus Bucks County, David Kratz, James Coyne, Carl Metellus, David Galione, Kelly Reed and John Doe Corrections Officers, all of Doylestown.
“The decedent was an inmate at the Bucks County Prison in July of 2022. The decedent died in custody at the Bucks County Correctional Facility on or about Aug. 1, 2022. The decedent died due to an overdose of narcotics. In July of 2022, the decedent was supposed to be in a restrictive housing unit. However, based on information and belief, the Bucks County Correctional Facility does not maintain a restrictive housing unit; instead, they housed inmates on a normal block, but restricted their movement to their own cell,” the suit stated.
“In July of 2022, the decedent was restricted to his own cell on a normal block. In July of 2022, the block in which the decedent was housed was rampant with narcotics. Based on information and belief, inmates were actively using and distributing narcotics on the block where the decedent was housed. Defendant Bucks County failed to properly screen inmates before they were admitted to the prison population to ensure they were not bringing drugs into the facility. Defendant Bucks County failed to properly monitor the prison to ensure that inmates were not distributing narcotics in July of 2022. Defendant Bucks County failed to properly monitor the prison to ensure that inmates were not using narcotics in July of 2022.”
The suit continued that as a result of Bucks County’s failure to maintain a safe prison, free of narcotics, the plaintiff overdosed on narcotics and died.
“Defendants Kratz, Coyne, Metellus, Galione, Reed and Doe were decision and policy makers at the Bucks County Prison in July of 2022, responsible for the safety of inmates. Defendants Kratz, Coyne, Metellus, Galione, Reed and Doe did not have proper safety protocols in place on to ensure the safety of inmates in July of 2022. Defendants Correctional Officer Does did not properly monitor the block on which the decedent was housed, to provide safety, and more specifically that narcotics were not distributed and used on the block. As a direct and proximate cause of defendants’ actions and inactions, the decedent suffered immense physical injuries and death. Moreover, the decedent’s family suffered mental anguish and a loss of companionship, comfort, financial support, and guidance,” the suit said.
“Moreover, the decedent had death beneficiaries who will never see him again, nor will the decedent be able to provide financial support for his beneficiaries. Defendant Bucks County failed to create, implement, and enforce policies, practices and procedures to ensure that proper safety was provided to the decedent. Bucks County failed to ensure corrections personnel properly enursed that narcotics were not rampant in the Bucks County Prison. Bucks County failed to properly treated to check inmates in who were in restrictive housing to make sure the inmates were safe. The averred mistreatment of the decedent was objectively serious – the availability and use of narcotics in custody at the Bucks County Correctional Facility is not an acceptable practice under any circumstance.”
The surviving family members of Joshua Patterson are seeking all damages available under the Survival Act and Wrongful Death Act.
The Bucks County defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, on Aug. 11.
“On Aug. 1, 2022, Joshua Patterson voluntarily ingested drugs while incarcerated at the Bucks County Correctional Facility and passed away from an overdose of narcotics. Plaintiff Valeria Corbin, Administrator of the Estate of Joshua Patterson, now brings this action against the County, the named defendants (in their individual and official capacities), and certain “John Doe Corrections Officers.” The complaint asserts claims for: (i) failure-to-protect under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (ii) supervisor liability under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (iii) municipal liability under Monell; and (iv) wrongful death and survivorship under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The limited facts pled in the complaint, however, fail to state any plausible claim for relief,” per the dismissal motion, in part.
“First, the failure-to-protect claim against the named defendants is not only duplicative of the supervisor liability claim, it is without any factual support. Instead, the complaint relies on improper group pleading and immaterial lawsuits that have no relevance to the claims at issue. Second, there is similarly no claim for supervisor liability. There are no facts showing the named defendants had knowledge of or acquiesced in the alleged drug use on Patterson’s block or the purportedly inadequate screening procedures. The complaint merely hypothesizes that they were somehow involved in Patterson’s death by virtue of their positions. Third, despite the complaint’s assertion that the County maintained or failed to maintain properly at least ten policies, the complaint fails to substantiate these claims beyond overbroad, vague, and conclusory allegations. Much like the supervisor liability claim, the Monell claim jumps to the conclusion that a County policy caused Patterson’s death. Fourth, because the complaint does not state any independent claims for relief, the derivative wrongful death and survivorship claims also fail. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed.”
The plaintiff responded to the dismissal motion on Aug. 14 and refuted the defendants’ counterclaims.
“Plaintiff averred in her complaint more than a sufficient amount of facts to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). She averred the decedent was a narcotics addict, drugs were rampant throughout the block in which her decedent was housed, and inmates were not properly screened for narcotics when entering the prison. Subjectively, Bucks County should have had better control of its prison to prevent the widespread influx of illegal narcotics and drug use by inmates at the prison,” the response brief stated.
“Further, plaintiff has not received any initial disclosures or information with the names of guards and supervisors who were on duty and responsible for the safety of the inmates on the block where the decent was housed at the time of death. If this Honorable Court does not believe plaintiff has averred enough facts to make out this claim, plaintiff asks for leave to file an amended complaint regarding this count. Also, plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court order the defendants to make initial disclosures and provide plaintiff with the proper identity of the guards and supervisor on duty during the time of plaintiff’s incarceration and death subject to the instant complaint.”
The response further asserted that the remaining claims are also valid and should survive a motion to dismiss.
“Plaintiff averred moving defendants were personally involved in policy, decision-making, training, and supervision regarding the safety of inmates at the Bucks County Prison. Plaintiff averred the supervisors and policymakers were responsible for policies related to the screening of new inmates at the facility to ensure no drugs were illegally smuggled into the prison. Further, these same policymakers and supervisors were responsible for maintaining a prison free from illegal narcotics. Again, supervisors need not have been personally involved and have knowledge of the specific constitutional violation when sued in their official capacity for a Supervisory Liability claim – they only need to be personally involved in the policy-making and supervision of the policy surrounding a pervasive drugs problem within the prison. Here, the Bucks County Prison had an extensive amount of illegal narcotics being circulated throughout the prison, which ultimately caused Mr. Patterson to die,” the response said.
“Plaintiff clearly pled a defective system, custom, or de facto policy regarding screening of inmates at the time of admission to ensure drugs were not brought into the prison, and further, that the prison itself was free of illegal narcotics. Defendant Bucks County’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 systemic problem with drug distribution to inmates in the Bucks County prison. Alternatively, defendant Bucks County has been sued for a myriad of deliberate indifference cases. Plaintiff cited 11 cases in anticipation of the instant motion to dismiss, to show that defendant Bucks County has a long and distinguished history of not caring about the safety of inmates. These cases show Bucks continues to minimize the safety and needs of inmates at their prison. They must be held accountable. Prisoner safety is the sine qua non of the County. They must provide the least among us with greater care to keep inmates safe.”
UPDATE
In a Nov. 21 memorandum opinion, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Wendy Beetlestone dismissed the supervisory and municipal liability claims without prejudice, while retaining the failure to protect, survival and wrongful death claims.
“Defendants do not dispute the existence of this duty [to protect vulnerable inmates from drugs], Corbin’s analogy between prisoner suicides and drug overdoses, or the viability of an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim in at least some prison-overdose cases. Rather, their arguments all go to whether Corbin has pled sufficient facts to state such a claim. Essentially, defendants argue that the amended complaint ‘alleges only a single instance of narcotics entering Patterson’s block,’ and that this singular instance ‘falls well short of paralleling the willful inaction [in the Sixth Circuit] in Zakora v. Chrisman or establishing the objective element.’ But while it is true that ‘a pervasive risk of harm may not ordinarily be shown by pointing to a single incident or isolated incidents,’ Corbin alleges far more than a one-off event. The amended complaint states that ‘inmates were actively using and distributing narcotics on the block where the decedent was housed,’ and it describes ‘a persistent smuggling problem’ at the defendants’ facility. And it further states that in the months after Patterson’s death, at least one other BCCF inmate overdosed on fentanyl that was also purchased while incarcerated. Whether Corbin is ultimately able to substantiate these allegations remains to be seen. But at this stage of litigation, they plausibly describe the kind of ‘unfettered access to drugs in a prison’ that the Zakora court determined was ‘sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective prong of an Eighth Amendment claim,” Beetlestone said.
“As with the objective prong, the allegations in Corbin’s amended complaint meet this standard. First, she alleges that individual Defendants both ‘knew there was a pervasive drug smuggling problem at the Bucks County Prison’ and ‘knew of the risks and harm associated with dangerous illegal drugs.’ Second, she alleges that they ‘ignored’ this knowledge “and did not do anything to curb the introduction, spread, and usage of dangerous drugs in prison, despite their direct and prior knowledge from prisoners regarding drugs in the prison.’ Third, with regard to Patterson himself, Corbin alleges that the individual defendants ‘knew the decedent was vulnerable to overdose or injury due to his previous narcotics usage,’ but housed him on a normal housing block and did not restrict other inmates from visiting his cell. Finally, to bolster the plausibility of these allegations, she describes multiple specific shortcomings in the performance of BCCF personnel, including that they performed just ‘a cursory pat down’ of Rhoades during his intake, failed to discover narcotics on his person when he entered the housing module, and ‘failed to properly check on [Patterson] to make sure he was safe and alive.’ As in Zakora, these allegations do not describe ‘simply a run-of-the-mill drug-overdose case.’ Rather, they describe an environment in which ‘relevant defendants allegedly knew that [the decedent] was at risk and ignored that risk,’ making this case “directly comparable to the suicide ‘deliberate-indifference’ cases where this court has allowed the claim to proceed beyond the pleading stage.”
Beetlestone added that Corbin’s response to the defendants’ dismissal motion addresses none of the shortcomings identified with her supervisory and municipal liability claims by the defendants, finding that she restated conclusory allegations in both instances and dismissing them both without prejudice.
Finally, Beetlestone retained the plaintiff’s survival and wrongful death claims and denied their dismissal.
“Here, defendants argue that Corbin’s wrongful death and survival act claims should be dismissed because her amended complaint fails to state an underlying constitutional tort claim – a requirement for recovery under these state statutes. But, as discussed above, the amended complaint successfully pleads a Section 1983 claim against the individual, non-supervisor defendants. Because defendants offer no other explanation for why Counts IV or V are improper, their motion to dismiss these counts will be denied,” Beetlestone said.
For counts of violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution through failure to protect from illicit drugs, supervisory liability and municipal liability, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $150,000 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, delay damages, interest, attorney’s fees and allowable costs of suit and brings this action to recover same.
The plaintiff is represented by Brian J. Zeiger of Levin & Zeiger, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Jaclyn Coutts Grieser and Tyler B. Burns of the Bucks County Law Department, in Doylestown.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-02784
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com