Quantcast

Lancaster County seeks dismissal from wrongful death suit concerning man who died by suicide in custody

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Lancaster County seeks dismissal from wrongful death suit concerning man who died by suicide in custody

Federal Court
Davidjmacmain

MacMain | MacMain Leinhauser

ALLENTOWN – Lancaster County is attempting to have itself be dismissed from wrongful death litigation brought by the estate of an inmate who died by suicide in custody in the County, while suffering from withdrawal symptoms.

Tamala Kathleen Dovel (Administrator of the Estate of Paul William Reardon) of Belville, Texas first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 31 versus Lancaster County, Warden Paul Smeal and Correctional Officers John/Jane Does 1-10 of Lancaster, PrimeCare Medical, Inc., Dr. William Cattell, Drs. John/Jane Does 1-5, PrimeCare Medical Providers Brittany Mastnjak, Lori Hehnly, CRNP, Danessa Nogueras, LPN and PrimeCare Medical Providers John/Jane Does 1-10, of Harrisburg.

Dovel alleged that her son, Reardon, died while being held as a pre-trial detainee in Lancaster County Prison due to inadequate medical care.

Reardon’s intake form had “Yes” answers to being under the influence of drugs and a history of opiates/heroin abuse. It also noted Reardon was under the influence of heroin at the time and acting and talking strangely.

With 16 “Yes” answers on the form, Reardon should have been placed on suicide watch, the suit said. Reardon denied having suicidal thoughts and denied ever attempting suicide previously.

And despite suffering a seizure while in custody, the suit explained Reardon was never put on suicide watch. He hanged himself with a bed sheet on Feb. 1, 2022, and died four days later from his injuries.

UPDATE

Defendant Lancaster County motioned to be dismissed the case on May 7, charging that the plaintiff had not properly pled the Monell liability count brought against it.

“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a threshold underlying constitutional violation against Lancaster. Although plaintiff names John and Jane Doe Correctional Officers, none of the counts of the Complaint assert claims against any of those Correctional Officers. The only count is Count IV, which is a claim only for Monell against Lancaster and the alleged Warden at the time of the incident in this case. The other named defendants are PrimeCare Medical, Inc., and its employees – who are not employed by Lancaster. Although Lancaster cannot be held liable for its employees on a respondeat superior basis, by not pleading that Lancaster employees were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s decedent, there is no substantive violation, and plaintiff fails to plead a factually plausible Monell claim against Lancaster. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim,” according to the motion.

“In addition to failing to establish the first and seminal issue of her Monell claim – a violation, plaintiff fails to plead a constitutionally deficient custom, practice, or policy. In the complaint, plaintiff merely pleads that Lancaster had deficient policy, practice and custom that required employees to not assign someone to a suicide watch in order to save money and human resources. Plaintiff provides no facts to support this conclusory allegation. Aside from plaintiff’s own claims against the prison, plaintiff makes no assertions that would meet the threshold requirements of a Monell claim to establish a custom, policy or practice by Lancaster. The complaint simply contains plaintiff’s empty assertions, in this instance only, that the alleged Warden and LCP had the foregoing policy. Without more factual information, plaintiff’s Monell claim against Lancaster fails.”

Lancaster County also found that the plaintiff’s Monell claim regarding insufficient training was similarly conclusory.

“Specifically, plaintiff claims correctional officers performing intake/suicide assessments are trained to answer certain questions ‘no’ so the pre-trial detainee/inmate who is withdrawing would not be placed on suicide watch, and correctional officers are trained to ignore the fact that a pre-trial detainee/inmate is withdrawing from heroin/opiates, despite their knowledge that this poses a substantial risk of suicide. Plaintiff provides no other facts to support such an assertion other than his allegation that the above training was to save money and resources for Lancaster. The complaint does not attempt to show a pattern of underlying constitutional violations, only those involving plaintiff’s decedent,” the dismissal motion continued.

“Plaintiff’s references to the Snyder and Kanney cases are without merit because those cases are from 2011 and 2016 – which hardly establish a pattern for a violation that allegedly occurred in 2022. Further, the complaint does not show Lancaster disregarded a known or obvious consequence of its alleged action, if any. Moreover, the complaint does not plead any fact to establish that anyone from Lancaster knew to a moral certainty that the alleged constitutional deprivation would occur to satisfy the narrow range of circumstances for failure to train in a single instance to support Monell. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for Monell based on alleged failure to train/training. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed.”

The motion concluded by arguing that the plaintiffs’ wrongful death and survival claims against Lancaster are barred by the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.

For counts of violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution through deliberate indifference to known risk of suicide, inadequate medical care and supervisory liability, Monell, corporate negligence, negligence, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and severally, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney’s fees and all other appropriate relief.

The plaintiff is represented by Alan E. Denenberg of Abramson & Denenberg, in Philadelphia.

Defendant Lancaster County is represented by of David J. MacMain and Matthew S. Polaha of MacMain Leinhauser in West Chester, and the PrimeCare defendants are represented by John R. Ninosky of Marshall Dennehey, in Camp Hill

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:24-cv-00467

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News