PHILADELPHIA – Citing immunity contained in the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, Monroe County and its Office of Children and Youth have motioned to be dismissed from litigation brought by the older sisters of a 12-year-old girl who was allegedly tortured, abused and, ultimately, murdered by her father and stepmother.
Emily Lee, Jamie Hoagland and Abbey Hoagland (individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Malinda Hoagland) of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 14 versus Chester County and Chester County Children, Youth & Families of West Chester, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Monroe County and the Monroe County Office of Children & Youth of Stroudsburg, Coatesville Area School District of Thorndale, North Brandywine Middle School and Horace S. Scott Middle School of Coatesville and Upper Dublin School District, of Maple Glen.
Malinda Hoagland died in Chester County on May 4, 2024 at 12 allegedly due to physical abuse inflicted by her father, Rendell Hoagland, and her stepmother, Cindy Warren. They are facing first-degree murder charges in Chester County.
“According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, Malinda was enrolled in the Upper Dublin School District in August 2021. Although plaintiffs do not claim that Malinda lived in Monroe County since that time, they allege that when she had been living with her parents in Monroe County several years ago, that Monroe CYS intentionally placed her in their home, despite knowing that Warren had a prior history of abusing a child,” the motion says.
The plaintiffs then sued the defendants for having failed to protect Malinda by not removing her from the Hoagland home.
“The affirmative actions and conduct of the defendants, schools, educators, and youth services workers responsible for Malinda’s safety and well-being, resulted in Malinda being placed in a home environment that was remarkably dangerous and which subjected Malinda to the daily risk of serious bodily injury and death at the hands of a known, convicted child abuser," the suit says.
"Shockingly, the defendants had actual knowledge that Malinda was residing with a known, convicted child abuser. Nevertheless, the defendants repeatedly released Malinda into the care of this person – who was not related to Malinda – which allowed Malinda to be serially abused, tormented and ultimately killed. These defendants saw the signs of Malinda’s abuse with their own eyes: black eyes, unexplained injuries, red marks, and severe weight loss, to name a few,” the original suit stated.
Malinda was allegedly chained to furniture, beaten with a belt, kicked, punched, forced to sleep on the floor and starved.
“Adding insult to injury, much of this abuse was filmed by Malinda’s perpetrators on numerous surveillance cameras inside in this house of horrors," the suit says. "In addition to affirmatively placing and releasing Malinda into a known dangerous home environment over and over again, the defendants also enacted and utilized policies, customs and practices with regard to reporting and investigating child abuse that were woefully inadequate and unlawful. These policies, customs, and practices directly resulted in Malinda’s abuse, starvation, torture and ultimate death.”
The causes of action against the Monroe defendants are state-created danger; a Monell claim for unlawful customs, practices, and policies; a Monell claim for failure to train; a state law claim for negligence and recklessness, which includes a demand for punitive damages; survival; and wrongful death.
UPDATE
The Monroe defendants’ motion seeks the dismissal of Monroe CYS because it is not a property party, the dismissal of all claims under Pennsylvania law due to the immunity protections in the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and the dismissal of the punitive damages claims against the Monroe County defendants, because punitive damages are not recoverable as a matter of law against political subdivisions.
“Monroe County CYS is not a proper Section 1983 defendant. The courts have consistently held that such agencies do not have a separate legal existence from the county itself, and therefore cannot be sued independently under Section 1983," the motion says.
"For instance, in Dennis v. Evans, the Court found that Luzerne County Children and Youth Services was not a separate entity from the county and could not be sued under Section 1983, noting that Luzerne CYS is an agency of Luzerne County and does not have a separate corporate existence; Therefore, the proper defendant in this case is Monroe County itself, which is already a party, and not its CYS agency."
Negligence claims include wrongful death and survival but are barred by immunity protections in the PSTCA, Monroe County argues.
“The PSTCA provides broad governmental immunity to local agencies, including counties, shielding them from liability for damages arising from any injury to a person or property caused by any act of the local agency or its employees, except as otherwise provided by the Act," the motion says.
The defendants added that the plaintiffs “have not alleged that Malinda’s parents sexually abused her, which is the only abuse exception in the PSTCA…even if they were to make such a claim, it is the sexual abuse of the agencies’ employees that should be the focus of the narrow exception and not the plaintiffs claim against an agency for its failure to protect…because plaintiffs’ claims do not fall within any of the exceptions to Tort Claims Act Immunity, no claims under Pennsylvania state law are permissible.”
As for punitive damages, Monroe County says they aren't allowed against a county in a federal civil rights lawsuit brought under Section 1983.
“The Supreme Court has established that municipalities, which include counties, are immune from punitive damages under Section 1983. This principle was affirmed in the case of City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., where the Court held that punitive damages may not be awarded against municipalities under Section 1983," the motion says.
"For the same reason, claims for punitive damages against county employees in their official capacities are also barred, as such claims are considered equivalent to claims against the county itself.
“Punitive damages may be sought only against individual defendants in their personal capacities if their conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent or involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others. However, in this case, no Monroe County employees are individually named as defendants. Therefore, all punitive damages claims against the County defendants based on constitutional violations under Section 1983 should be dismissed. Similarly, even if plaintiff’s state law claims were not barred by the Tort Claims Act, there is no right to recovery of punitive damages under state law.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas Edward Bosworth of Bosworth Law, in Philadelphia.
The Chester County defendants are represented by David J. MacMain and Stephen Gage Rhoads of MacMain Leinhauser in West Chester, while the Monroe County defendants are represented by Gerard J. Geiger of Newman Williams, in Stroudsburg.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-04180
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com