Doe v. Allegheny Cnty.
| Decision Date | 27 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 10-1761 |
| Parties | JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, RAMON C. RUSTPN, JOHN JOHNSON, JR., and ALLEGHENY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
ECF Nos. 89, 93, 97, 101, 125, 138
MEMORANDUM OPINIONPresently before the Court are Plaintiff Jane Doe's ("Plaintiff" or "Doe") Motions for Summary Judgment against Defendants John Johnson, Jr. ("Johnson"), Allegheny Correctional Health Services, Inc. ("ACHS"), Warden Ramon C. Rustin ("Rustin"), and Allegheny County ("the County") at ECF Nos. 89, 93, 97, and 101, respectively. Also before the Court, are the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants ACHS against Plaintiff at ECF No. 138, and the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Rustin, and the County against Plaintiff at ECF No. 125.
After a careful review of the record, the Court will order the following: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment against Johnson at ECF No. 89 will be granted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment against ACHS at ECF No. 93 will be denied, and ACHS' Motion for Summary Judgment at ECF No. 138 will be granted as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claim, and denied without prejudice as to Plaintiff's professional negligence claim. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment against Rustin at ECF No. 97 will be denied.Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment against the County at ECF No. 101 will be denied. Finally, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the County and Rustin at ECF No. 125 will be granted as to Rustin, and denied as it relates to the County.
Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are undisputed.
On March 23, 2010, Plaintiff became a pretrial detainee at the Allegheny County Jail ("Jail"). (ECF No. 92-1 at 17; ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶ 17; ECF Nos. 103, 156 at ¶ 4.) At this time, Doe was pregnant and addicted to controlled substances, requiring special medical attention from the medical staff at the Jail. (ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶ 18.) In order to administer medical services to its patients, the Jail contracted with ACHS. (ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶ 4; ECF Nos. 103, 156 at ¶ 7.) ACHS, as the medical services provider to those incarcerated at the Jail, is subject to the security policies and procedures of the Jail, including its anti-fraternization policy. (ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶ 9; ECF Nos. 103, 156 at ¶ 10.)
Doe's special needs (pregnancy and addiction to controlled substances), necessitated that she be given Methadone for her addiction, and Phenergan injections for nausea associated with her pregnancy. (ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶¶ 19-20.) Doe's Methadone was distributed by a nurse in a locked corridor. (ECF No. 95, 151 at ¶ 21.) Doe's Phenergan injections were administered in an examination room with a collapsible shade pulled in front of double doors containing glass in their upper halves; one door was always left open such that conversations could be overheard, but the collapsible shade was pulled in front of the open door for visual privacy. (ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶ 22.)
Johnson was a nurse employed by ACHS who regularly had the duty to administer medications to inmates, including Doe. (ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶¶ 23-25.) On October 11, 2011, Johnson pled guilty to institutional sexual assault against Doe and others in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.1 (ECF No. 92-9 at 2.) According to Plaintiff, prior to April 14, 2010, Johnson performed indecent sexual acts upon Doe while alone with her in the examination room when administering her Phenergan injections.2 (ECF No. 95 at ¶ 44.) Thereafter, according to Plaintiff, between April 14, 2010, and April 26, 2010, Johnson had sexual contact with Doe five (5) more times. (ECF No. 95 at ¶ 4.) It is undisputed that Doe did not report this abuse until April 24, 2010, when she was approached by Corrections Officer Clark who had been informed by other inmates of the alleged abuse. (ECF No. 128-1 at 3.) During all of his contacts with Doe, Johnson identified himself as a nurse, and was employed by ACHS. (ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶ 43; ECF Nos. 148, 150 at ¶ 1.)
On April 14, 2010, an inmate named Tonya Jackson ("Jackson") filed a complaint with ACHS staff against Johnson, alleging that he had given her a candy bar, had come into her cell while the lights were off on numerous occasions to take her vitals, and alleging that he had talked "sex stuff" to her ("the Jackson complaint") (ECF Nos. 140-2, 140-3).3 ACHS immediately reprimanded Johnson for violating ACHS' anti-fraternization policies (ECF No. 128-1 at 18) and reported the incident to the Jail's Internal Affairs Department ("IA"), which is comprised ofdetectives from the Allegheny County Police Department and Jail employees. (ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶¶ 26-27; ECF Nos. 103, 156 at ¶ 24.) The Director of Nursing for ACHS, Kimberly Gasser ("Gasser"), discussed the complaint with ACHS Chief Operating Officer ("COO") Dana Phillips ("Phillips"). (ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶ 28.) Phillips alerted IA. (ECF No. 140-7 at 14.) Gasser also testified that she immediately notified IA on April 14, 2010. (ECF No. 128-5 at 31.) Gasser and Phillips confronted Johnson about the allegations. (ECF No. 140-7 at 28.) Johnson admitted to Gasser some of the allegations in the complaint, including giving Jackson the candy bar. (ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶¶ 29-30.) Plaintiff contends that at this point, ACHS did not investigate Johnson's conduct in spite of ACHS policy to do so; ACHS disputes this characterization of the facts because it was ordered by the IA not to interfere with its criminal investigation. Specifically, the Allegheny County Police officers working in IA instructed ACHS not to investigate or notify Johnson that he was being investigated, and not to take any action on the violation because it was a police matter. (ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶ 31; ECF No. 140-7 at 14-15, 42.) Plaintiff and ACHS agree, however, that the Jail's IA was responsible for investigating all criminal activities occurring within the Allegheny County Jail. (ECF Nos. 95, 151 at ¶ 34.)
Evidence of record, however, does not reflect that the Jail's IA immediately began its investigation of Jackson's April 14, 2010 complaint upon being notified by ACHS. (ECF No. 128-1.) The County responds only that the IA acted in a reasonable manner in responding to and investigating the complaint. (ECF Nos. 103, 156 at ¶ 23.) It appears from the Police Criminal Complaint at ECF No. 128-1, that jail official reports and written statements from victims, witnesses, a nurse, and correctional officers were generated by April 23, or April 24, 2010. (ECF No. 128-1 at 3.) It also appears that Detective Jon Comis ("Detective Comis") of IA wasnot instructed to begin his investigation until April 26, 2010 when he interviewed several individuals. (ECF No. 128-1 at 3 ().) On April 26, 2010, IA revoked Johnson's jail security clearance. (ECF No. 128-1 at 12.)
Plaintiff reported Johnson's abuse when interviewed by Detective Comis on April 26, 2010, during the course of his investigation of the Jackson complaint against Johnson. (ECF No 128-1 at 3.) Plaintiff indicated that she was afraid to report the alleged abuse because Johnson looked her up on the computer and knew where she lived, and also, because he was in a position of authority over her as a jail nurse. (ECF No. 150 at ¶ 19.)
Rustin testified that as Warden of the Jail in 2010, he was in charge of policy and its implementation. (ECF No. 128-7 at 7.) He had the power to revoke security clearances of anyone that came into the Jail including vendors and contracted personnel. (ECF No. 128-7 at 35.) He was the supervisor for all jail employees, but not county police employees; IA was a collaboration of the two. (ECF No. 128-7 at 8.) Specifically, Rustin specified that there were two sets of IA individuals, one that would have been employed by the Department of Corrections, and one employed through the county police department. (ECF No. 128-7 at 55-56.) Rustin testified that he wanted to be sure that there was an independent component to IA; by assigning a county police member of the IA to the Johnson investigation, Rustin could achieve this goal of independence and transparency. Further, the county police segment of IA had arrest powers while the jail employees of IA did not. (ECF No. 128-7 at 56.) Rustin indicated that Detective Comis worked with IA and was part of the county police segment. (ECF No. 128-7 at 9.)
When IA received an incident report, Rustin would be advised of the same by someone in IA; someone would let Rustin know "what investigations they're currently looking into." (ECF No. 128-7 at 11.) If the case was criminal in nature, "then the detective that works for county police, he would advise his supervisor and file charges." (ECF No. 128-7 at 11.) Rustin did not specifically recall being informed of the Jackson complaint about Nurse Johnson, but in light of the above, believes that he would have been informed of the investigation at some point. (ECF No. 128-7 at 11.) When questioned further by Plaintiff's counsel about the criminal nature of this investigation and the fact that written reports of investigations involving criminal matters went directly to county police, Rustin indicated he just wasn't sure he received "any reports from any of the people in Internal Affairs directed to [him] regarding John Johnson." (ECF No. 128-7 at 65-66.) In addition, Rustin indicated that he would not necessarily be informed when ACHS gave Johnson a written notice of disciplinary action; there would be no reason for Rustin to be involved in ACHS' discipline of one of its employees. (ECF No. 128-7 at 49, 54.) Finally, Rustin indicated that because inmate complaints are a constant in the prison...
To continue reading
Request your trial