Maraj v. Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 10–12251–JLT.

• Decision Date: 13 December 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 10–12251–JLT.
• Citation: 836 F.Supp.2d 17
• Parties: Betty MARAJ, Administratrix of the Estate of Darryl Leslie, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS; Suffolk County Sheriff's Department; Andrea J. Cabral, Suffolk County Sheriff; Melvin Reed; Daniel Brock; Michael Griffin; Dana Johnson; James Glavin; Keith Storlazzi; Joseph Munger; Thomas Flynn; James Coppinger; Edward Sciaratta; Michael Carbonneau; Barbara Jocelyn; and Prison Health Services, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

836 F.Supp.2d 17

Betty MARAJ, Administratrix of the Estate of Darryl Leslie, Plaintiff,

v.Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS; Suffolk County Sheriff's Department; Andrea J. Cabral, Suffolk County Sheriff; Melvin Reed; Daniel Brock; Michael Griffin; Dana Johnson; James Glavin; Keith Storlazzi; Joseph Munger; Thomas Flynn; James Coppinger; Edward Sciaratta; Michael Carbonneau; Barbara Jocelyn; and Prison Health Services, Inc., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 10–12251–JLT.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Dec. 13, 2011.

Jonathan L. Pickering, Law Office of Jonathan Pickering, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

Ellen Caulo, Boston, MA, Melissa J. Garand, Victor J. Koufman, Koufman & Frederick, LLP, Salem, MA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

TAURO, District Judge.

I. Introduction

This action stems from a claim brought by Plaintiff Betty Maraj, the Administratrix of the Estate of Darryl Leslie, against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, Suffolk County Sheriff Andrea J. Cabral, and a number of individual corrections officers employed by the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, regarding alleged violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights as well as violations of state statutory and common law.¹ At issue here is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

[# 21]. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.II. BackgroundA. Factual Background²

Plaintiff is the mother of a deceased inmate, Darryl Leslie, and has brought suit as administratrix of his estate.³ Darryl Leslie (“Decedent”) was an inmate at the South Bay House of Correction until his death on December 31, 2007.⁴ The events that preceded his death began on the evening of December 31, 2007, when Nurse Barbara Jocelyn discovered a hand written note, placed in the inmate “Sick Call Box” of the 3–2 unit, warning that a female corrections officer was in danger of being raped by one of the inmates. ⁵ Nurse Jocelyn turned the note over to the 3–2 unit supervisor, Sergeant Jeffrey Fiorentino.⁶ The inmate making the threatening remarks was identified as Decedent.⁷

Sergeant Fiorentino notified the building 3 supervisor, Lieutenant Jason McGrane, who, along with shift commander Captain Michael Powers, made the decision to move Decedent into segregation pending an investigation.⁸ Lieutenant McGrane notified the Sheriff Emergency Response Team (“S.E.R.T.”), supervised by Lieutenant Melvin Reed (“Defendant Reed”), that Decedent was to be moved to segregation.⁹ Defendants Brock, Griffin, Johnson, and Glavin responded to the call and began the transfer.¹⁰

Decedent was restrained with handcuffs and escorted from his cell in the 3–2 unit down the hall, across the yard, toward building 1, at which time Decedent is alleged to have begun resisting.¹¹ Defendant Brock then “double locked” Decedent's handcuffs and put him into an “escort hold.” ¹² Defendants Storlazzi and Munger met Defendants Griffin and Brock at the entrance to building 1 to assist in the transfer.¹³ Defendant Storlazzi observed Decedent yelling at the officers and resisting the escort hold.¹⁴ At approximately 9:13 p.m., Defendants Storlazzi, Munger, Griffin, and Brock met Defendant Reed, the S.E.R.T. supervisor, at the elevator in building 1. There, Defendant Reed accompanied the escort on the elevator to the fourth floor 1–4–2 segregationunit.¹⁵ It is alleged that while in the elevator, Decedent continued to resist.¹⁶

Defendant Reed then ordered other S.E.R.T. officers—Defendants Flynn, James, Coppinger, Sciaratta, and Carbonneau—to meet the escort on the fourth floor to provide additional assistance.¹⁷ Defendant Reed also ordered the escort team to place Decedent in emergency response belts (“ERBs”) upon exiting the elevator.¹⁸ When the elevator doors opened, Decedent was taken to the ground, his inmate jumpsuit was removed, and the ERBs were applied. ¹⁹ Under the supervision of Defendant Reed, Defendants Storlazzi and Brock applied the top belt and Defendants Storlazzi and Sciaratta then applied the lower belt.²⁰ While the belts were being secured, Defendant Carbonneau applied direct pressure to Decedent's shoulder area and used knee and palm strikes to Decedent's torso to subdue him when he allegedly continued to resist.²¹

While applying the upper belt around Decedent's torso, Defendant Brock heard Decedent state that he could not breathe.²² That Decedent made this statement was corroborated by several inmates and Officers Coackley, Dion, Salvatti, and Melchin, who are not party to this litigation.²³

The ERBs were secured at 9:22 p.m., and Defendants Brock, Storlazzi, Flynn, and Carbonneau carried Decedent into the 1–4–2 unit.²⁴ Officer Storlazzi then stated that he could hear and feel the upper torso belt loosening, at which point Defendants put Decedent back on the ground to tighten the top belt to prevent it from sliding.²⁵ Video taken by Defendant Munger, pursuant to Defendant Reed's order and facility policy, showed that Decedent was not combative, his head was limp, and he was unresponsive and unconscious while the belt was being readjusted and tightened.²⁶

The belt was adjusted and tightened by 9:22:42 p.m., and the officers proceeded to cell # 10 with Decedent.²⁷ At 9:22:58 p.m., before arriving at the new cell, Defendant Reed requested medical attention for Decedent.²⁸ Upon arriving at the new cell at 9:23:30 p.m., Defendants placed Decedent on the floor of the cell, at which time Decedent was unresponsive to any questions or commands.²⁹ Defendant Reed then secured Decedent in his cell and left him on the floor in the restraints. ³⁰ Defendant Reed made a follow-up call for medical assistance at 9:24:28 p.m.³¹

Nurse Jocelyn arrived at Decedent's cell at 9:25:50, and the door to the cell was opened at 9:26:35 so that she could conduct a medical evaluation. ³² Nurse Jocelyn could not make verbal contact with the Decedent and could not find his pulse.³³ At 9:28:20 p.m., Nurse Jocelyn told the Defendants present that it was medically necessary to remove the ERBs, which they did at 9:29:00 p.m.³⁴ Nurse Jocelyn and Defendant Storlazzi again checked for a pulse but could not find one.³⁵ Nurse Jocelyn attempted other techniques to revive Decedent but was unsuccessful.³⁶ At 9:31:38 p.m., Defendants initiated CPR and applied a defibrillator machine to Decedent until Boston Fire and EMS relieved them at 9:41 p.m. and 9:42 p.m. respectively.³⁷ Decedent was eventually transferred to Boston Medical Center at 10:15 p.m., where he was pronounced dead at 10:24 p.m.³⁸

While the autopsy conducted by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner could not determine the manner of death, it determined the cause of death to be a result of a “probable onset of cardiac dysrhythmia as a result of myxomatous degeneration of mitral valve in the setting of reported acute agitation requiring restraint.” ³⁹ The autopsy also revealed that Decedent had a preexisting diseased heart valve and a borderline enlarged heart.⁴⁰

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff originally filed this case on December 30, 2010.⁴¹ On May 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand [# 4]. ⁴² On July 11, 2011, Defendants Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, Suffolk County Sheriff Andrea Cabral, Melvin Reed, Daniel Brock, Michael Griffin, Dana Johnson, James Glavin, Keith Storlazzi, Joseph Munger, Thomas Flynn, James Coppinger, Edward Sciaratta, and Michael Carbonneau filed a Motion to Dismiss [# 21]. Also on July 11, 2011, Defendants Prison Health Services, Inc. and Barbara Jocelyn filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss [# 24], which was ALLOWED by this Court on September 22, 2011[# 49]. On July 25, 2011, Defendants Prison Health Services, Inc. and Barbara Jocelyn filed a Motion for Referral to a Medical Malpractice Tribunal [# 27], which was ALLOWED by this Court on November 3, 2011[# 51].

Plaintiff brings seventy-eight counts,⁴³ four of which have been dismissed.⁴⁴ The remaining seventy-four counts allege federal constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; state common law claims of wrongful death, negligence, and assault and battery; as well as state statutory civil rights claims under M.G.L. c. 12 §§ 11H, I. The federal claims will be addressed first, followed by Plaintiff's state law claims.III. DiscussionA. Standard of Review

The standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is clear. While this court must accept all of Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, bare assertions and conclusions of law are not entitled to similar weight.⁴⁵ “To state a claim, a complaint must contain factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory.” ⁴⁶ To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege “a plausible entitlement to relief.” ⁴⁷ There must be sufficient facts in the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to each defendant named in the complaint.⁴⁸

B. Claims Against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, Suffolk County Sheriff Andrea Cabral, and the Corrections Officers in Their Official Capacities

In Counts 1 through 15 of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges federal and state constitutional, statutory, and common law violations by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Counts 1–5), the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department (Counts 6–10), and Suffolk County Sheriff Andrea Cabral in her official capacity (Counts 11–15). Plaintiff brings the same claims against the eleven named corrections officers in both their official and individual capacities (Counts 16–70). The federal counts brought against the Commonwealth, the Sheriff's Department, and the corrections officers in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and thus are DISMISSED.

Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars suit in federal...