PHILADELPHIA – A man incarcerated at the Montgomery County Correctional Facility last year says that his civil rights were violated during his stay, while the defendants counter that the plaintiff has failed to properly plead his claims.
John Halter of Schwenksville initially filed suit in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 24 versus Montgomery County (doing business as “Montgomery County Correctional Facility”), Assistant Warden of Programs Administration Martha D’Orazio, Assistant Warden of Community Corrections Sean Smith, Assistant Warden of Security Operations Thomas Berger, Director of Inmate Services Gary Chesney and two John Doe Correctional Officers, all of Eagleville.
“On or about March 1, 2022, plaintiff was arrested and brought to Montgomery County Correctional Facility. During intake, Correctional Officers 1 and 2 told plaintiff to take off all his clothes. Plaintiff complied and tossed his clothing in the clothing bin. Defendants Correctional Officers 1 and 2 assumed plaintiff was throwing the clothes at them, and in retaliation threw a slipper at plaintiff. Correctional Officer 1 proceeded to grab plaintiff and toss him against the wall, where plaintiff struck his head and caused it to split open. Plaintiff subsequently fell to the ground and both Correctional Officers began kicking plaintiff in the ribs and punching him in the face,” the suit states.
“Plaintiff attempted to put his hands behind his back, but the Correctional Officers would not let him. Correctional Officers 1 and 2 pepper sprayed plaintiff even though he was complying with their orders. After several minutes, additional officers came in and hog-tied plaintiff. The officers dragged plaintiff down the hallway without any clothes on. Officers constrained him to a wheelchair and put a spit mask on. Officers were laughing at plaintiff and continually poked through the spit mask where his open wound was.”
The suit continues that the plaintiff was then transported to medical, where he was housed for approximately a week and a half without a shower. Additionally, the suit mentions the plaintiff requested to have a shower to remove the pepper spray off his body, but his request was denied – and he was also denied fresh clothes and a toothbrush.
“After approximately a week, plaintiff was moved to a different section of the jail for a couple of weeks and was subsequently moved back to medical. Plaintiff finished his stay at Montgomery County Correctional Facility in solitary confinement for 30 days. Upon information and belief, all defendants knew or should have known plaintiff was being denied his right to shower, have a toothbrush, and have access to clean clothes,” the suit says.
“Specifically, defendants did not take the proper precautions to make sure that inmates were being treated properly. Upon information and belief, it was common for corrections officers to get violent during intake. Upon information and belief, defendants Martha D’Orazio (Assistant Warden, Programs, Administration), Sean Smith (Assistant Warden, Community Corrections), Thomas Berger (Assistant Warden, Security Operations) and Gary Chesney (Director of Inmate Services) are the decision-makers regarding the aforesaid custom, policy and/or practice. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe physical and emotional distress as a result of defendants’ conduct.”
On Dec. 14, the defendants filed to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, citing the federal statutes the plaintiff alleges were violated, thus giving the case federal jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on Dec. 20, for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“Plaintiff alleges that he was brought to and detained at MCCF on the day of his arrest for unspecified charges. He allegedly was assaulted by correctional officers while undergoing MCCF’s intake process, and he was taken from intake to MCCF’s medical unit, where he alleges he was not provided with adequate medical care. There is no allegation made that plaintiff was ever convicted and sentenced on the charges that prompted his detention at MCCF. From the facts alleged, it is evident that plaintiff was a pretrial detainee, not a sentenced prisoner, during the events at issue. As a pretrial detainee, plaintiff’s rights are determined by the Fourteenth Amendment, not by the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. Because he is a pretrial detainee, plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Fourth and Eighth Amendments should be dismissed,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“Regardless of the constitutional amendment at issue, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a plausible claim against Montgomery County for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. In the present case, the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate a plausible Section 1983 claim for municipal liability against Montgomery County on the basis of (1) a policy or (2) a custom. First, plaintiff’s complaint does not identify any formal County policy as the moving force behind a constitutional violation. As noted above, a ‘policy’ for purposes of Monell liability is a ‘statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated by [a local governing] body’s officers.’ No such official County policy is cited or identified at any point in the complaint. No facts are pleaded to demonstrate it to be plausible that a formally adopted policy of the County was the direct cause of the alleged use of excessive force against plaintiff or was the direct cause of any denial of medical care to plaintiff. Thus, no Monell claim is stated here on the basis of a formal Montgomery County policy.”
The dismissal motion adds that individual claims against the defendants failed, as did the plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages.
For counts of failure to protect, failure to keep safe, failure to provide medical care and cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, negligence, excessive force, assault and battery and Monell, the plaintiff is seeking damages, individually, jointly and severally, in excess of $50,000, including punitive damages and further relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and just, including attorney’s fees and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by David A. Berlin and Matthew B. Weisberg of Weisberg Law in Morton, plus Gary Schafkopf of Schafkopf Law, in Bala Cynwyd.
The defendants are represented by Philip W. Newcomer of the Montgomery County Solicitor’s Office, in Norristown.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-04954
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas case 2023-00841
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com