Giddings v. Joseph Coleman Center

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: Anita B. Brody
• Citation: Giddings v. Joseph Coleman Center, 473 F.Supp.2d 617 (E.D. Pa. 2007)
• Decision Date: 07 February 2007
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 04-CV-4382.
• Parties: Denial GIDDINGS, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH COLEMAN CENTER, et al., Defendants.

473 F.Supp.2d 617

Denial GIDDINGS, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH COLEMAN CENTER, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 04-CV-4382.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

February 7, 2007.

Dennis R. Suplee, Kate A. Kleba, Schnader Harrison Segal And Lewis, L.L.P., Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Craig M. Straw, Harry G. Mahoney, Troy D. Sisum, Deasey, Mahoney & Bender Ltd., Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANITA B. BRODY, District Judge.

Plaintiff Denial Giddings filed this § 1983 action against Parole Officer Amy Clewell ("Clewell"), Warrant Officer Willie Puffins ("Pullins"), Warrant Officer Deborah McKnight ("McKnight"), the Joseph Coleman Center ("Coleman Center"), and various Coleman Center employees ("Coleman Staff'). Defendants Clewell, Puffins and McKnight have moved for summary judgment asserting the defense of qualified immunity. For the reasons stated below, I will grant this motion.¹

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts²

In 2002, plaintiff Denial Giddings was serving a 35 month to seven year sentence for criminal trespass at the state correctional institution at Houtzdale ("SCI-Houtzdale"). On September 15, 2002, Giddings was placed on parole and admitted as an inpatient at Self — Help, a halfway house. On April 10, 2003, he was discharged from Self — Help and moved to a private residence with his family. On one of his weekly visits to his parole officer Giddings carried a toy gun with him. Because of the fake weapon, on October 23, 2003 the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole placed Giddings at the Coleman Center, a halfway house in Philadelphia.

The Coleman Center was under contract with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to provide housing, food, mental health treatment and employment services to parolees and parole violators. Among other staff, the Coleman Center employed a full-time nurse for treating minor illnesses. Approximately twice a week a psychiatrist was available for mental health treatment. Residents were permitted to leave and reenter the Coleman Center only with specified destinations and permission from a counselor.

Approximately one month later on December 2, 2003, Giddings was in a severely depressed emotional state. As he had done on previous occasions, Giddings expressed his mental health and medication concerns to the Coleman staff. Giddings suffered from a mental or emotional disorder that caused him to cut into the skin of his arms in order to "relieve pressure." On a regular basis, the Coleman Center distributed single razor blades to residents for shaving. Around 4:00 p.m. on that day, three Coleman Staff members found Giddings in his room holding a razor blade to his own arm. Giddings cut his arm and then flushed the razor down the toilet. Giddings alleges that this cutting act was part of a suicide attempt.

Amy Clewell was a parole officer on duty at the Coleman Center that day. She was substituting for Giddings' regular parole officer who was on vacation. Clewell had never met Giddings before that day on December 2, 2003. Clewell was summoned to Giddings' room as the cutting incident was occurring. Her line of sight from the hallway was blocked from clearly seeing events as they transpired inside the room, but she was, present when everyone eventually left the room and entered into a common area. Clewell, Giddings and the Coleman Staff members then proceeded to an office in the Coleman Center. Giddings said that he was unhappy at the Coleman Center and wanted to leave. Giddings was asked if he wanted to go to the hospital, and he replied affirmatively.³ He was then told that he would be taken to the hospital the next morning because his regular parole officer was not present.⁴ Giddings told those present in the office that he did not want to wait. He finally agreed to stay in the Coleman Center until the next morning, but he attributes this to his unsound mind at the time.⁵ Manuel Arroyo, Facility Director of the Coleman Center, suggested that Giddings be transferred to the Harmony Unit, the mental health unit at the Coleman Center. Giddings agreed to the transfer. Because his arm had been bleeding, Giddings had wrapped something tight around it. After the transfer to the Harmony Unit, Giddings was not given any psychiatric treatment and no one made any effort to limit his access to razor blades.

Shortly after the cutting incident on December 2nd, Clewell spoke with her supervisor and they agreed to remove Giddings to a state correctional facility on the basis that he violated his parole by possessing a weapon, namely the razor blade. Clewell was concerned that Giddings could be a threat to others and also believed that Giddings would be able to receive more extensive mental health treatment in prison than at the Coleman Center. But she and her supervisor decided to postpone his removal until the next day because of the lack of available parole agents. Clewell made no arrangements to ensure that Giddings would be supervised or be prevented from having access to other razor blades or sharp objects that evening.

On the morning of December 3, 2003, the day after the incident, Clewell reviewed Giddings' file at the parole office. This file contained a Psychological Report and Clinical Risk Assessment report, which stated that "Mr. Giddings has an extensive history of assaultive and manipulative behavior toward staff. He has feigned suicide attempts for secondary gain. . . ." After reviewing the file, Clewell organized an arrest team of six parole officers. She and the officers planned to arrest Giddings in the parole room of the Coleman. Center. They covered a window in the parole room so that Giddings could not see who was in the room when he arrived, and thus not suspect that he was about to be arrested.⁶

Giddings was summoned to the parole room without any escort but he never arrived. Instead, as he approached the room from the hallway he noticed a group of people inside and then returned to his own room. When Gidding never arrived, the arrest team went to Giddings' room where he was found facing the wall with a deep, bleeding gash on his forearm, which was the same forearm as the prior day's cut.⁷ The officers handcuffed Giddings, brought him back to the parole room and called for the nurse on staff at the Coleman Center. The nurse put a bandage on the gash and said that Giddings would probably need stitches but could be transported first in his present condition to state correctional institute at Graterford ("SCI-Graterford") and be treated there.⁸

Warrant Officers Willie Pullins and Deborah McKnight arrived at the Coleman Center to transport Giddings to SCI-Graterford. Initially Pullins and McKnight were hesitant to transport Giddings in his wounded condition, but the nurse assured them that "he would be fine for transport." Giddings walked to the transport van without aid. But during the trip between the Coleman Center and SCI-Graterford Giddings was drowsy and eventually passed out, fell over and scratched his face on the inside of the van.

Giddings had taken some pills and told McKnight that he felt drugged. During the two-hour long trip, Giddings also pulled the bandage off his arm. Pullins telephoned his supervisor out of concern for Giddings' condition. The supervisor instructed Pullins and McKnight to continue to SCI-Graterford with Giddings. Despite being instructed by the Coleman Center nurse not to make any stops en route to SCI-Graterford, the officers stopped at the Philadelphia Northwest District parole office for approximately 10 to 60 minutes to pick up some records.⁹ The officers did not stop to take Giddings to a hospital for medical treatment.'¹⁰

When they arrived at SCI-Graterford, Giddings was unconscious and put in a stretcher. A nurse at the penitentiary told Officer Pullins that he could get in trouble for bringing Giddings to the hospital in his condition.¹¹ But because Giddings needed medical attention, she agreed to admit him after taking photos of his injuries. Giddings was then given stitches and placed in a mental health unit at the prison.

B. Standard for Summary Judgment

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), a District Court shall grant a motion for summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." A disputed fact is material if, under the substantive law, it might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.

When qualified immunity is asserted summary judgment motions present two counterbalancing considerations. "[T]he Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stages of litigation, because [if] a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial, then qualified immunity is effectively lost. A decision on qualified immunity, however, will be premature when there are unresolved disputes of historical fact relevant to the immunity analysis." Wright v. City of Philadelphia, 409 F.3d 595, 599 (3d Cir.2005) (quoting Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 277-78 (3d Cir.2002)) (internal quotations omitted).

II. SECTION 1983 ACTIONS AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

A plaintiff who brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must show that (1) the challenged conduct was committed by a person acting under the color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law. The moving defendants indisputably acted "under color of state law" at the time in question because they were either parole officers or warrant officers enforcing...