Redclift v. Schuylkill Co.

• Decision Date: 31 August 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 4:21-CV-1866
• Parties: SEAN REDCLIFT, Individually and as ADMINISTRATOR of the Estate of Stacy Redclift, Plaintiff v. SCHUYLKILL COUNTY,et. al. Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

SEAN REDCLIFT, Individually and as ADMINISTRATOR of the Estate of Stacy Redclift, Plaintiff
v.
SCHUYLKILL COUNTY,et. al. Defendants

Civil Action No. 4:21-CV-1866

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

August 31, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION PrimeCare Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 88)

William I. Arbuckle U.S. Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Tragically, Stacy Redclift took her own life when she was detained at the Schuykill County Prison. Her family now brings this civil rights action against a variety of actors, from the police officers who arrested her to prison guards, alleging they displayed deliberate indifference to her known risk of suicide. The medical providers at the Prison have now moved to partially dismiss the claims against them.^[1]For the reasons that follow, I will deny the medical providers' Motion to Dismiss. II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case began on November 2, 2021, when Sean Redclift (“Plaintiff” or Sean),^[2] acting individually and as the administrator of Stacy Redclift's estate, filed

1

a Complaint. (Doc. 1). On January 6, 2022, Plaintiff amended his complaint as of right, and that is now the operative pleading. (Doc. 21).

In this motion to dismiss stage, I will take all facts presented in the Amended Complaint as true. Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir. 2010). In the early morning of January 6, 2020, Stacy Redclift was involved in a domestic dispute with her husband, Sean, and her son, Alexander. (Doc. 21, ¶ 45). Coledale Borough Police Officer Matthew Jungbaer and Coledale Borough Police Officers John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 arrived at her residence, and arrested Stacy “due to her allegedly erratic and non-compliant behavior.” (Id. at ¶ 46). Stacy was later arraigned and released to her mother's house. (Id. at ¶ 47).

However, instead of staying at her mother's house, Stacy returned to her home, and engaged in erratic and non-compliant behavior. (Id. at ¶ 48). Officer Jungbaer, and the two John Doe police officers responded to the Redclift home and arrested Stacy. (Id. at ¶ 49). The officers brought Stacy to the Schuykill County Prison (the “Prison”). (Id.). However, before she arrived, Sean and Alexander told the officers that Stacy “had a history of mental illness, psychotic episodes, suicide attempts/ tendencies, and psychiatric hospitalizations.” (Id. at ¶ 50). Despite this knowledge, the officers did not communicate this information to anyone at the Prison, including its medical providers. (Id. at ¶¶ 51-52).

2

On January 6, 2020, at 12:11 p.m., Stacy was booked and processed at the Prison. (Id. at ¶ 54). At 1:51 p.m., Nurse Hysock performed a medication verification for Stacy. (Id. at ¶ 56). Nurse Hysock ordered various medications for Stacy, but failed to order Stacy's Paxil, a psychotropic drug. (Id.).

In the early morning of January 7, 2020, Nurse Hollywood conducted a Stacy's mental health and suicide screening. (Id. at ¶ 58). Stacy told Nurse Hollywood that (1) she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and bipolar disorder type two, (2) had a history of suicide attempts, (3) had a lengthy history of inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations, (4) she was currently being cared for by a psychiatrist for her mental health disorders, (5) that she was on medications for her medical illnesses, and (6) that she felt like she needed to see a mental health provider at that time. (Id. at ¶ 62).

The screening indicated that Stacy needed “further psychiatric evaluation,” but it was never performed. (Id. at ¶ 59). Further, Nurse Hollywood incorrectly conducted the screening because she failed to obtain information from the Coaldale Borough Police Officers, and failed to “accurately appreciate, report, or record the information given to her by Officer Jungbaer, John Doe Coledale Police Officer 1, John Doe Coaldale Police Officer 2, or Ms. Redclift.” (Id. at ¶ 61). Nurse Hollywood “reviewed and verified” Stacy's screening and medication forms at 4:07 a.m. on January 7, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 63).

3

Sometime on January 7, 2020, someone discovered that Stacy did not have her Paxil, and Nurse Practitioner McGowan ordered it for her. (Id. at ¶¶ 64-65). Despite it being ordered, the order was never approved, and Stacy did not receive any Paxil during her incarceration. (Id. at ¶ 65). However, Nurse Gross attempted to give Stacy her other medications, but she refused. (Id. at ¶ 69).

In the late evening of January 7, 2020, Stacy's cellmate found her hanging by a noose. (Id. at ¶ 71). Stacy Redclift died the next day. (Id. at ¶ 74).

Because of the aforementioned actions, Plaintiff pleads nine counts against the various defendants. As applied to this motion, Plaintiff brings a negligence claim, a wrongful death claim, a survival act claim against Nicole Hollywood LPN, Alyssa Hysock LPN, Cayla Sullivan LPN, Tara Hamm, LPN, HSA, Paula Dillman-McGowan, CRNP, Nicole Macaluso CRNP, Catherine Galle, LPN, Kimberly Ryan LPN, Carina Gross, LPN, Kendle Jemiola, and PrimeCare (“Moving Defendants”). Plaintiff also brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical care claim against the individual defendants (all Moving Defendants besides PrimeCare). Finally, Plaintiff brings a distinct Monell claim for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs.

On April 7, 2022, Moving Defendants moved to dismiss some of the claims against them for failing to state to claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 88). Moving Defendants seek to dismiss Counts III (deliberate indifference to serious

4

medical needs and suicide risk), IV (Monell claim against PrimeCare), VIII (wrongful death), and XI (survival action) of the Amended Complaint.^[3] Their Brief in Support was filed on April 12, 2022. (Doc. 94). Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition on May 9, 2022. (Doc. 100). Moving Defendants filed a Reply Brief on May 23, 2022. (Doc. 102). Thus, this Motion is ripe for resolution.

III. THE MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD

A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. It is proper for the court to dismiss a complaint in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court “must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and ultimately determine whether Plaintiff may be entitled to relief under any reasonable reading of the complaint.” Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir. 2010). In review of a motion to dismiss, a court must “consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the [plaintiff's] claims are based upon these documents.” Id. at 230.

5

In deciding whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court is required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint as well as all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the complaint. Jordan v. Fox Rothchild, O'Brien & Frankel, Inc., 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). These allegations and inferences are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. The court, however, “need not credit a complaint's bald assertions or legal conclusions when deciding a motion to dismiss.” Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Further, it is not proper to “assume that the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he] has not alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

“A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rather, a complaint must recite factual allegations sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation. Id. To determine the sufficiency of a complaint under the pleading regime established by the Supreme Court, the court must engage in a three-step analysis:

First, the court must take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim. Second, the court should identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Finally, where they are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.

6

Santiago v. Warminister Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, 679). “In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief” and instead must “‘show' such an entitlement with its facts.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009).

As the Court of Appeals has observed:

The Supreme Court in Twombly set forth the “plausibility” standard for overcoming a motion to dismiss and refined this approach in Iqbal. The plausibility standard requires the complaint to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A complaint satisfies the plausibility standard when the factual pleadings “allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). This standard requires showing “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A complaint which pleads facts “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement of relief.'” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127

...