Allen v. Youth Educ. Servs. of Pa., LLC
| Decision Date | 20 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-4269 |
| Parties | OKITA ALLEN, as administratrix of the estate of Carnez William Boone, Jr., and individually v. YOUTH EDUCATIONAL SERVICES OF PA, LLC, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
This § 1983 action arises from the drowning death of a teenage boy, Carnez William Boone, Jr., on July 30, 2010, while in the custody of a privately owned juvenile facility acting pursuant to a contract with the Delaware County Department of Juvenile Probation and Delaware County Department of Human Services. The boy's mother, Okita Allen, brings suit against the facility, YES Academy, two related corporate entities, Youth Educational Services of PA, LLC and Youth Services Academy Incorporated, and individual defendants Joseph Ferrainola and Damian Ferrainola. Allen brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her son's rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court considers here a motion to dismiss on behalf of all defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) against the plaintiff's second amended complaint. For thereasons that follow, the Court will grant the defendants' motion in its entirety.
YES Academy is a staff-secured residential care facility for male adolescents between the ages of 11 and 18. YES Academy rehabilitates minors referred from juvenile probation departments across Pennsylvania. YES Academy is affiliated with two other business entities, Youth Educational Services of PA, LLC ("YES of PA"), and Youth Services Academy Incorporated ("YSA," and, collectively, "YES Defendants"). Compl. ¶¶ 22, 47.
YES of PA and YSA are licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare's Office of Children, Youth and Families to "provide comprehensive residential treatment programs for adolescent males adjudicated by the JuvenileCourts" of Pennsylvania.2 The Delaware County Department of Human Services and the Delaware County Department of Juvenile Probation entered into a contract with the YES Defendants for them to provide treatment services to minors adjudicated by that county's juvenile court. At all times relevant to this suit, YES of PA and YSA were certified by the Department of Public Welfare to operate a juvenile residential treatment facility, pursuant to 55 Pa. Code § 3800 et seq., under the trade name YES Academy. The YES Defendants state that their "progressive, behavioral, and independent living system is unparalleled in the state of Pennsylvania" and that YES Academy is "the premier treatment facility in the state specializing in the treatment of juvenile sex offender[s] and juvenile fire setters." Id. ¶¶ 19, 21, 48-51, 53-54, 56.
Defendant Joseph Ferrainola is the owner and CEO of YES of PA and executive director of YES Academy, and defendant Damian Ferrainola is the assistant director of YES Academy. In their capacity in those roles, they are allegedly responsible for establishing and implementing policies and procedures, as well as ensuring compliance with Pennsylvania regulations,related to the treatment of the residents. These duties allegedly include implementing Individual Service Plans ("ISPs") for the residents and performing health and safety assessments under the relevant regulations. Id. ¶¶ 24-41.
The plaintiff asserts that the YES Defendants have several policies that related to the swimming activities on July 30, 2010. YES Academy included swimming activities as part of the treatment program provided to juvenile probation residents. Id. ¶¶ 60, 62-64. For this assertion, the plaintiff relies on a YES Academy document, which the plaintiff identifies as a "treatment and policy manual," but the defendant identifies as an advertising brochure. Compl., Ex. A, ECF No. 18-1.
Joseph and Damian Ferrainola implemented ISPs that included off-site recreational swimming without preparing a written safety plan or testing the residents' swimming abilities. Furthermore, the Ferrainolas did not obtain permission from the residents' probation officers or parents before taking them swimming. Compl. ¶¶ 61, 67-73, 173-76.
The defendants also allegedly failed to ensure that a certified lifeguard was on duty at the lake on the day ofBoone's death, which allegedly violated Pennsylvania state regulations. Lastly, the defendants failed to properly train YES Academy staff who took the residents to the lake. Id. ¶¶ 84, 116-23, 131-33, 157-59.
In 2010, thirteen-year-old Carnez Boone was adjudicated by the Delaware County Juvenile Court and placed in the custody of the Delaware County Department of Juvenile Probation and the Delaware County Department of Human Services. They, in turn, assigned him to the "care and custody of the YES Defendants," and he became a resident of YES Academy. Id. ¶¶ 57-59.
On the morning of July 30, 2010, Damian Ferrainola held a pre-field trip meeting with residents, according to YES Academy's policy. At that meeting, Damian Ferrainola asked the residents to raise their hand if they "didn't know how to swim or [weren't] . . . a very good swimmer." Boone did not raise his hand in response to this question. Otherwise, the YES Defendants did not test the residents to determine whether they could swim or restricted the residents' activities in the lake during the field trip. Id. ¶¶ 91-106.
On July 30, 2010, the YES Defendants' staff took Boone and approximately fifteen other YES Academy residents to Sandy Lake to go swimming.3 Boone did not know how to swim and had not been tested for swimming ability by the YES Defendants or any Delaware County agency. YES Academy did not obtain permission from either Boone's mother or his probation officer to allow him to go swimming that day. Id. ¶¶ 107-10.
That afternoon, several of the YES Academy residents were swimming and jumping into the lake, including from a high dive. The YES Defendants did not place any restrictions on what the residents were permitted to do at Sandy Lake that day, including jumping off the diving board. Id. ¶¶ 112-15.
The YES Academy staff members did not accompany the residents out to the floating dock where the diving board was located, and there were no lifeguards present on the dock. The lifeguards were not elevated, but rather were sitting in plastic chairs on the shoreline. Neither the lifeguards nor the YES Defendants' staff could see the residents jumping into the lake from the shoreline. Id. ¶¶ 116-23.
After jumping into the lake, Boone had difficulty resurfacing and eventually sank beneath the water. Lifeguards and YES Academy employees were not immediately able to locate him. A bystander, responding to the lake's distress siren, dove into the lake to help. He found Boone at the bottom of the lake and pulled him from the water onto the dock. At that point, Boone had been underwater for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Id. ¶¶ 124-29, 136-41.
Lifeguards performed CPR on the dock in the middle of the lake. When paramedics arrived, Boone was transported to the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center-Horizon. CPR was performed on Boone for an additional thirty minutes at the hospital, but medical personnel were unable to revive him. Boone was pronounced dead at 2:11 p.m. from asphyxiation due to drowning. Id. ¶¶ 142-45, 147-49.
The plaintiff filed this suit on July 27, 2012, and filed an amended complaint on September 14, 2012. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss or stay on October 1, 2012.After oral argument on February 21, 2013, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim on April 2, 2013. The plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days, which was intended to provide the plaintiff with sufficient time to engage in discovery in the Pennsylvania court action. The plaintiff filed her second amended complaint on June 3, 2013, and the defendants responded with the motion to dismiss considered here.
Boone's mother, Okita Allen, alleges in this suit that the defendants' actions caused Boone's death. She claims that Boone's death is attributable to the defendants' policies of taking "residents swimming without first testing or evaluating their swimming abilities." Compl. ¶ 188. The plaintiff asserts that the YES Defendants had a policy of including swimming activities in a resident's ISP, without testing a resident's swimming ability or preparing a written safety plan to address whether the resident could safely engage in swimming activities, allegedly violating Pennsylvania regulations. Furthermore, the YES Defendants allegedly violated Pennsylvania regulations and Boone's constitutional rights by taking him to Sandy Lake to swim, including using the high dive, as part of his ISP withoutfirst obtaining the permission of his probation officer or mother and without lifeguards present. The YES Defendants also allegedly failed to implement appropriate training procedures. Id. ¶¶ 170, 173-83.
Allen claims that the defendants were, at all times, acting pursuant to authority delegated by Delaware County and were therefore acting under the color of state law. Id. ¶¶ 168-69. She alleges that the defendants' policy of taking residents swimming without testing or evaluating their swimming abilities violated Boone's constitutional rights "to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and to substantive and procedural due process, as guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as remediable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Id. ¶ 189.
A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 (1957), abrogated in other respects by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A claim may be dismissed under...
To continue reading
Request your trial