Michaux v. Temas

• Decision Date: 07 July 2020
• Docket Number: 2:17-CV-01241-JFC
• Parties: JASON MICHAUX, JANAYE MICHAUX-ORRIS, CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF GREGORY MICHAUX; Plaintiffs, v. WARDEN JOHN TEMAS, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ADAM SMITH, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SHAWN SCHULTZ, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MELVIN GRAY, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JONATHAN BLEDNICK, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; CAPTAIN MICHAEL KING, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; NURSE CHERYL MCGAVITT, IN HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; NURSE GEORGENE HEPPLE, IN HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AS EMPLOYEE/AGENT OF SOUTHWEST BEHAVIORAL CARE, INC.; AND DEPUTY WARDEN EDWARD STRAWN, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

JASON MICHAUX, JANAYE MICHAUX-ORRIS, CO-ADMINISTRATORSOF THE ESTATE OF GREGORY MICHAUX; Plaintiffs, v. WARDEN JOHN TEMAS, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES;

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ADAM SMITH, IN HIS OFFICIAL

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SHAWN SCHULTZ,

IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES;

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MELVIN GRAY, IN HIS OFFICIAL

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JONATHAN BLEDNICK,

IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; CAPTAIN MICHAEL KING,

IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; NURSE CHERYL MCGAVITT,

IN HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; NURSE GEORGENE HEPPLE,

IN HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AS EMPLOYEE/AGENT

OF SOUTHWEST BEHAVIORAL CARE, INC.; AND DEPUTY WARDEN EDWARD STRAWN,

IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; Defendants

2:17-CV-01241-JFC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

July 7, 2020

JUDGE JOY FLOWERS CONTI

OPINION

I.Introduction

This case arises from the tragic suicide of Gregory Michaux("Michaux") on September 26, 2015, at the Washington County Correctional Facility(the "WCCF" or "jail").Pending before the court are summary judgment motions filed on behalf of defendantGeorgine Hepple("Hepple"), a psychiatric nurse employed by Southwest Behavioral Care, Inc.("Southwest")(ECF No. 91), and the correctional defendants¹(ECF No. 87).The parties thoroughly developed their respective positions in the Concise Statements of Material Facts ("CSMF")² and the motions are fully briefed and ripe for decision.

Plaintiffs withdrew their claims against (or conceded that summary judgment may be granted in favor of)defendants Shultz, Blednick, King and Strawn.Plaintiffs maintain their claims against Hepple, McGavitt, Smith, Gray and Temas.

II.Procedural History

Jason Michaux and Janaye Michaux-Orris, as co-administrators of the Estate of Gregory Michaux("plaintiffs"), filed the initial complaint on September 25, 2017.After all the defendants named in the complaint filed a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 6, 2018.All defendants named in the amended complaint renewed their motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.The court struck this pleading because plaintiffs failed to obtain leave of court, as required by Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 15(a)(2)(ECF No. 19).Plaintiffs sought leave to file another amended complaint, which the court denied without prejudice after a hearing and argument.Minute Entry of May 31, 2018.The court entered a case management order ("CMO") setting a deadline of June 29, 2018, for amending the pleadings and joinder of new parties(ECF No. 25).On August 2, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, even though the deadline in the CMO had expired (ECF No. 30).The third amended complaint is the operative pleading in this case.It added three new defendants on August 13, 2018(ECF No. 32).All defendants named in that complaint (the "named defendants") filed answers to the third amended complaint (ECF Nos. 34, 43).

The third amended complaint contains the following claims:

• Count I against all named defendants, except for Warden Temas, in their individual and official capacities pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of Gregory Michaux's constitutional rights while he was a pretrial detainee at the jail for deliberate indifference in failing to prevent his suicide;

• Count II against Warden Temas in his individual and official capacity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 for Monell liability and supervisory liability;

• Count III against all named defendants in their individual capacities brought as a state law survival action pursuant to 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3372and42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8302; and

• Count IV against all named defendants in their individual capacities for wrongful death under Pennsylvania law.

The court conducted a Daubert hearing on July 31, 2019.At the hearing, the court expressed concern that the claims and legal theories were not clearly identified.Plaintiffs' counsel offered to submit a document to clarify them.The court permitted this opportunity, over all named defendants' objections.(Tr. 56-57, ECF No. 64).In his post-hearing clarification (ECF No. 63), plaintiffs' counsel explained that the third amended complaint asserted the following claims:

1.Corrections officers Smith, Shultz, Gray and Blednick were actually aware of Michaux's particular vulnerability to suicide, due to: (a) torn bedsheets; (b) communications with counselors and nurses who treated him; and (c) the writings in his journal, which the officers were obligated to read, as pleaded in ¶¶ 46-50.

2.Captain King and Deputy Warden Strawn exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to: (a) prevent Michaux's suicide; (b) notify corrections officers, physician, counselor or warden that he was suicidal; (c) get him proper medical care; (d) supervise the corrections officers, nurses and counselor; and (e) require the staff to read journals/notebooks kept by inmates in the segregated housing unit ("SHU"), as pleaded in ¶ 53.

3.Nurses Hepple and McGavitt were deliberately indifferent by failing to: (a) prevent Michaux's suicide; (b) notify the corrections officers, physician, counselor or warden that he was suicidal; (c) get him proper medical care; (d) take action to get Michaux a consultation with a psychiatrist sooner; (e) read his journal or ask what he was writing in it; (f) learn about prior suicide attempts or torn bed sheets; and (g) observe that Michaux had a strong vulnerability to suicide, which would have been obvious to any lay person, as pleaded in ¶¶ 51-52.

4.Warden Temas (a) permitted a custom and practice of failing to ensure that inmate medical findings of suicidality were communicated to the corrections officers; (b) permitted a widespread practice of nurses and counselors failing to share inmates' vulnerability to suicide with corrections officers; (c) failed to provide appropriate suicide prevention training; and (d) failed to require staff to read journals/notebooks kept by inmates in the SHU, as pleaded in ¶¶ 59-60.

On October 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed a further clarification of their claims to incorporate ¶¶ 40-45 of the third amended complaint and delete two sentences in ¶ 46(relating to video surveillance cameras)(ECF No. 75).

III.Factual Background

A.Fact and Expert Discovery Record

The fact discovery deadline was December 31, 2018, almost seven months after the case management order entered on June 4, 2018.Plaintiffs' counsel did not propound anyinterrogatories or document requests or notice any depositions prior to the deadline.³The court granted plaintiffs a one-month extension, until January 30, 2018, to complete depositions.No other discovery was permitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C)(ii)("the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery" if . . . "the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action").(Minute Entry, November 15, 2018).

Plaintiffs' counsel nonetheless sought further discovery by, among other things, serving subpoenas duces tecum, to which defendants objected.In January 2018, plaintiffs' counsel filed motions for additional discovery and sanctions.After a hearing on March 21, 2019, defendants agreed to produce certain documents and the court permitted discovery of documents which plaintiffs may not have known about prior to depositions.One document which arguably fell within that category was an inmate appointment log book.Defense counsel represented that the log book was turned over to a new psychiatric care provider which looked for the log book, but could not find it; in other words, the log book was lost when the county changed medical providers.(Tr. of February 6, 2019 hearing, ECFNo. 69-1at 72).The court denied as moot plaintiffs' motion to compel production of that inmate appointment log book, because it could not be located.Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions was denied because plaintiffs failed to serve timely written discovery.(Minute Entry, March 21, 2019).The court found that plaintiffs did not show due diligence or good cause to overcome the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(ii) and did not order other documents to be produced.The court, however, precluded defendants from using or referring to any documents they had not produced to plaintiffs, including for purposes of summary judgment motions or trial.(Hearing, November 15, 2018).

The parties were directed to complete expert reports and discovery pursuant to the CMO deadlines.Dr. A.E. Daniel("Dr. Daniel") prepared an expert report on behalf of plaintiffs on March 19, 2019.(ECFNo. 57-2).Defendants obtained responsive expert reports.On June 20, 2019, defendants filed timely Daubert motions, which were fully briefed.The court held a Daubert hearing on July 31, 2019.Although Dr. Daniel's qualifications as an expert in suicide prevention in the correctional setting were not disputed, the court raised significant concerns about the reliability, "fit," and underlying lack of evidence to support many of Dr. Daniel's opinions.

After post-hearing briefing, the court issued an opinion and order on December 5, 2019(ECF No. 82).⁴As set forth more fully in that opinion, the court: (1) denied plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery as an improper post-hoc effort to bolster their expert's testimony; (2) granted defendants' motions to preclude Dr. Daniel from testifying about deliberate indifference by any individual defendant because he was unable to opine about any individual responsibility;⁵ and (3) precluded Dr. Daniel from testifying that corrections officers had a duty to read inmates' writings because he lacked the proper qualifications in the supervision of corrections officers.(ECF No. 82at 20-21).Defendants' Daubert motions were otherwise denied and Dr. Daniel was...