Schorr v. Borough of Lemoyne, CIV.A.1:CV-01-930.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: Kane
• Citation: Schorr v. Borough of Lemoyne, 243 F.Supp.2d 232 (M.D. Pa. 2003)
• Decision Date: 10 February 2003
• Docket Number: No.CIV.A.1:CV-01-930.,CIV.A.1:CV-01-930.
• Parties: Keith I. SCHORR and Susan Schorr, In their own right and as personal representatives of the Estate of Ryan K. Schorr, Plaintffs v. BOROUGH OF LEMOYNE; Borough of Wormleysburg; West Shore Regional Police Dept.; Howard Dougherty, Chief, West Shore Regional Police Dept.; Cumberland County; Robert Goril, Executive Director, Cumberland County Mental Health/Mental Retardation Dept.; Holy Spirit Hospital, and West Shore Regional Police Commission, Defendants

243 F.Supp.2d 232

Keith I. SCHORR and Susan Schorr, In their own right and as personal representatives of the Estate of Ryan K. Schorr, Plaintffs v. BOROUGH OF LEMOYNE; Borough of Wormleysburg; West Shore Regional Police Dept.; Howard Dougherty, Chief, West Shore Regional Police Dept.; Cumberland County; Robert Goril, Executive Director, Cumberland County Mental Health/Mental Retardation Dept.; Holy Spirit Hospital, and West Shore Regional Police Commission, Defendants

No.CIV.A.1:CV-01-930.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

February 10, 2003.

Gerald J. Williams, Williams & Cuker, Philadelphia, PA, Jamie C. Ray, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

David J. MacMain, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, PA, John R. Ninosky, Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C., Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KANE, District Judge.

Before this Court are motions to dismiss filed by (1) West Shore Regional Police Commission and Police Chief Howard Dougherty (Doc. No. 34), and (2) Cumberland County (Doc. No. 36); the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mannion (Doc. No. 63); and Plaintiffs' objections thereto (Doc. No. 64). For the reasons discussed below, this Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in part and sustain the Plaintiffs' objections.

I. Factual Background

This Court adopts the factual background as found by the Magistrate Judge as follows:

Plaintiffs' decedent, Ryan K. Schorr, ("Schorr"), suffered from bipolar disorder. Schorr's condition deteriorated shortly before November 18, 2000, and his roommate and family applied for his involuntary committal pursuant to § 302 of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. A crisis intervention worker employed by Holy Spirit Hospital took and evaluated the application, and caused an order for involuntary commitment to be issued. The worker then contacted the Cumberland County Control Unit and arranged for West Shore Regional Police Department officers to detain Schorr pursuant to the commitment order and related warrant. Two officers went to Schorr's apartment and took him to Holy Spirit Hospital, where he was placed in a "high security" room in the emergency department to wait for an evaluation. When a crisis intervention worker entered the room, Schori pushed past the worker and escaped from custody. Schorr's family called his apartment and, finding him there, called the police to report his whereabouts. Two officers were again dispatched to Schorr's apartment to take him back into custody and to Holy Spirit Hospital. A violent confrontation ensued and Schorr was shot and killed by one of the officers.

(Doc. No. 63 at 1-2.)

II. Scope of Review

Plaintiffs, Keith and Susan Schorr, filed this civil action against several Defendants as a result of the events surrounding the death of their son, Ryan Schorr. The remaining Defendants are West Shore Regional Police Commission ("Commission"), Howard Dougherty, Chief of West Shore Regional Police Department ("Dougherty"), Cumberland County, and Holy Spirit Hospital. The Commission and Dougherty moved to dismiss Counts I, V, VI, and VII of Plaintiffs' complaint; Cumberland County moved to dismiss Counts IV, V, VI, and VII of Plaintiffs' complaint. The Magistrate recommends denying the Commission and Dougherty's motion to dismiss Count I of the complaint and granting the motions to dismiss Counts IV, V, VI, and VII of the complaint against all remaining Defendants.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), "[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. Plaintiffs object only to the dismissal of Count V of the amended complaint against the Commission. Defendants have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Additionally, Plaintiffs have since filed, and this Court has granted, a motion to dismiss Counts VI and VII against all moving Defendants, Count IV against Cumberland County, and Count V against Dougherty and Cumberland County. This Court will therefore limit its review to those portions of the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation reviewing Count I as to the Commission and Dougherty and Count V as to the Commission.

III. Discussion

A. Plaintiffs' § 1983 Claim

Plaintiffs bring Count I of their complaint against the Commission and Dougherty pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unconstitutional policies and procedures for dealing with mentally ill persons and unconstitutional failure to train police officers to peacefully deal with mentally ill persons. The Commission and Dougherty moved for dismissal of Count I of Plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that it fails to allege a deprivation of Schorr's constitutional rights, and characterizing it as a fourth amendment excessive force claim. However, Plaintiffs' claim is more properly characterized as a fourteenth amendment substantive due process claim.

Therefore, the Magistrate properly concluded that Plaintiffs have stated a § 1983 claim against the Commission and Dougherty. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989) (holding that the inadequacy of police training may serve as the basis for § 1983 liability "where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact"); Fagan v. City of Vineland, 22 F.3d 1283 (3d Cir.1994) (substantive due process case for failure to train arising out of police pursuit could be brought even where there was no allegation of constitutional violations by individual police officers). This Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation on this ground and deny Defendants' motion to dismiss Count I of the complaint.

B. Plaintiffs' ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims

Plaintiffs bring Count V against the Commission pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (2003) ("ADA" or "Title II"). The Magistrate recommends dismissing this claim, to which Plaintiffs object. In Count V of their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that "Defendants violated Ryan Schorr's federally guaranteed right to be free from discrimination on the basis of disability by failing to make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices and procedure to ensure that his needs as an individual with a disability would be met." (Doc. No. 24 at 13.) Defendants do not appear to contest whether Schorr qualifies as a disabled individual under the ADA, but only whether the ADA applies to the facts of this case. Defendants characterize the claim as alleging failure to accommodate "while making an arrest" and argue that arrests "do not fall within the ambit of the ADA." (Doc. No. 35 at 9-11.)

This Court's analysis of whether Plaintiffs can state a claim under the ADA begins with the statute itself. See Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 265, 101 S.Ct. 1673 68 L.Ed.2d 80 (1981) ("the starting point in every case involving construction of a statute is the language itself) (citation omitted). Title II of the ADA provides, in relevant part: "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Although the ADA does not define "services, programs, or activities," § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act¹ specifies that "`program or activity' means all of the operations of ... a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government^]" 29 U.S.C. § 794(b) (emphasis added).

On its face, by guaranteeing disabled persons full access to all of the "services, programs, or activities of a public entity," the Act appears to provide protection from a very broad range of discriminatory treatment. Although to the lay reader this language may suggest only commonly available and publicly shared accommodations such as parks, playgrounds, and transportation, the Act in no way limits the terms "services, programs, or activities," and appears to include all core functions of government. Among the most basic of these functions is the lawful exercise of police powers, including the appropriate use of force by government officials acting under color of law. Plaintiffs allege that these essential government functions are activities covered by the ADA and that the failure of Defendants to properly train the police for peaceful encounters with disabled persons caused decedent Schorr to be discriminated against and excluded from these government services. Nothing in the language of the statute suggests that the ADA does not extend to this type of governmental activity.

Indeed, in enacting the ADA, Congress found that "individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including ... failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5). Congress stated that one purpose of the ADA was "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). Thus, the ADA is a remedial statute, designed to eliminate discrimination against the disabled in all facets of society. As a remedial statute, it must be broadly construed to effectuate its purposes. Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332, 335, 88 S.Ct. 548,19 L.Ed.2d 564 (1967).

Other legislative materials provide further support for a broad statutory interpretation.² The regulations to Title II of the ADA state that the statute "applies to all services, programs, and activities provided or made available by public entities." 28 C.F.R. § 35.102(a). In the preamble to the...