Dejesus et al v. The State of Delaware et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 9/28/2016. (nmfn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ORLANDO AND PAULETTE
DEJESUS, FATHER AND MOTHER
AND NEXT OF KIN OF BLAISE
DEJESUS, DECEASED,

)

)
)
)

)
Plaintiffs,

)
)

v.

)

THE STATE OF DELAWARE, et al.,

Civ. No. 15-1065-SLR

)
)

)
Defendants.

)

Daniel Charles Herr, Esquire of Law Office of Daniel C. Herr LLC, Wilmington,
Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Roopa Sabesan, Esquire of the Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel
for Defendants the State of Delaware, Lt. Todd Drace, Tiffani Starkey, and Sgt. John
Kirlin.
Dana Spring Monzo, Esquire of White & Williams, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for
Defendant Connections Community Support Programs, Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dated: September 28, 2016
Wilmington, Delaware

~~udge
I. INTRODUCTION

On November 17, 2015, Orlando and Paulette DeJesus ("plaintiffs"), parents and
next of kin to Blaise DeJesus ("decedent"), commenced this civil action arising under
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §§
1983 and 1988, Title II to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the statutory and
common law of the State of Delaware against defendants the State of Delaware acting
through the Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC"), correctional officers Lt. Todd
Drace ("Drace"), Sgt. John Kirlin ("Kirlin"), and Tiffany Starkey ("Starkey") (collectively
the "State defendants"), and DOC's medical and mental health contractor, Connections
Community Support Programs, Inc. ("Connections") (collectively with the State
defendants, "defendants"). Plaintiffs allege that the deliberate indifference by DOC and
Connections to decedent's particular vulnerability to suicide violated the Americans with
Disability Act ("ADA") and was a proximate cause of decedent's suicide while he was
incarcerated at a DOC facility. (D.I. 1 at

,m 46-59)

Plaintiffs also assert that the

correctional officer defendants violated the Eighth Amendment's proscription against
cruel and unusual punishment. (Id. at

,m 60-68)

Finally, plaintiffs claim that the medical

negligence of Connections and its employees and agents was a proximate cause of
decedent's suicide. (Id. at ~m 69-76)
On January 27, 2016, the State defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
(D.I. 9, 10) State defendants assert that plaintiffs did not overcome the requirements of
qualified immunity and that the ADA claim fails to set forth a plausible claim because the
DOC is entitled to sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs have filed their opposition with no

objection to dismissal of the ADA claim. (D.I. 11 at 6) Therefore, the ADA claim is
deemed dismissed, and the court addresses only the issue of qualified immunity. The
defendants have replied. (D.I. 12) The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3), and supplemental jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

II. BACKGROUND 1
On or about August 1, 2014, decedent, a long-term heroin user, was sentenced
to attend the CREST addiction rehabilitation program. (D.I. 1) Decedent went directly
from sentencing to the Central Violation Probation Center ("CVOP") 2 to await transfer to
the CREST program.
During the medical screening part of intake into CVOP, decedent admitted to
CVOP staff to having heroin and other drugs in his system, and to be suffering from
withdrawal symptoms. (Id. at 1116) In order for medical professionals to attend to
decedent's withdrawal symptoms and detoxification, decedent was moved to the
infirmary located in JTVCC. (Id. at 1117)
Although decedent was still suffering physically and mentally from heroin and
other drug withdrawal, he was discharged from the infirmary on or about August 5,

2014. (Id. at 1122) Decedent was supposed to be transferred back to CVOP. (Id. at 11
21) Instead, an order was placed moving decedent to general inmate housing at

1

The following facts are alleged in the complaint, which facts the court will accept as
true for the purpose of deciding the pending motion. Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d
Cir. 1996)(citing Holder v. City of Allentown, 987 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 1993).
2

CVOP is located next to the James T. Vaughn Correction Center ("JTVCC") in
Smyrna, Delaware.

2

JTVCC. (Id.) After discovering that decedent's brother was a correctional officer
employed at JTVCC, the housing order was changed so that decedent would be housed
in the Segregated Housing Unit ("SHU"). (Id. at

,.m 23-24)

Decedent was transferred to

the SHU in the late afternoon/early evening hours of August 5, 2014. (Id.
Drace and Kirlin escorted decedent to his cell in the SHU. (Id.

at~

at~

25)

34) Decedent

begged Drace and Kirlin not to house him alone because he felt like he was suffering
from withdrawal symptoms. (Id.

at~

35) Decedent said that he was concerned that he

may hurt himself. (Id.) Drace and Kirlin took no meaningful action in response to
decedent's statements and placed him in a cell in the SHU. (Id.

at~

36) Later, as

Starkey conducted rounds, decedent begged Starkey not to continue to house him
alone because he still felt like he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms and may hurt
himself. (Id. at ~ 37)
DOC policies and procedures require that rounds be conducted every 30
minutes. (Id.

at~

40) Kirlin and Starkey did not conduct proper rounds every 30

minutes to check on inmates on the particular tier in which decedent was housed on
August 5, 2014, instead performing rounds at intervals that exceeded 90 and 120
minutes. (Id. at 1111 40-42) During an interval that exceeded 120 minutes, decedent
hanged himself and died. (Id. at 1143) No correctional officer walked by decedent's cell
to check on him prior to decedent hanging himself. (Id. at 11 45)

Ill. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency
of a complaint's factual allegations. Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007); Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). A complaint must contain

3

"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in
order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545 (internal quotation marks omitted)
(interpreting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). Consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings in
Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the Third Circuit requires a three-

part analysis when reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp.,
809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d. Cir. 2016). In the first step, the court "must tak[e] note of the
elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim." Next, the court "should identify
allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the
assumption of truth." Lastly, "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court
should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
entitlement for relief." Id. (citations omitted).
Under Twombly and Iqbal, the complaint must sufficiently show that the pleader
has a plausible claim. McDermott v. Clondalkin Grp.,, Civ. No. 15-2782, 2016 WL
2893844, at *3 (3d Cir. May 18, 2016). Although "an exposition of [the] legal argument"
is unnecessary, Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011 ), a complaint should provide
reasonable notice under the circumstances. Id. at 530. A filed pleading must be "to the
best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances," such that "the factual contents have evidentiary
support, or if so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery." Anderson v. Bd. of Sch. Directors of
Millcreek Twp. Sch. Dist., 574 F. App'x 169, 174 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

11 (b)). So long as plaintiffs do not use "boilerplate and conclusory allegations" and

4

"accompany their legal theory with factual allegations that make their theoretically viable
claim plausible," the Third Circuit has held "pleading upon information and belief [to be]
permissible [w]here it can be shown that the requisite factual information is peculiarly
within the defendant's knowledge or control." McDermott, 2016 WL 2893844, at *4
(quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted).
As part of the analysis, a court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in
the complaint as true, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 406
(2002); Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008). In this regard, a
court may consider the pleadings, public record, orders, exhibits attached to the
complaint, and documents incorporated into the complaint by reference. Tellabs, Inc. v.

Makar Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein,
Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384-85 n.2 (3d Cir. 1994). The court's analysis is a
context-specific task requiring the court "to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663-64.
IV. ANALYSIS
The State defendants move to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs have failed to plead
a plausible Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to decedent's increased
risk of suicide or decedent's medical needs. (0.1. 10) They contend that the factual
allegations are insufficient to overcome defendants' qualified immunity and do not
demonstrate a substantial risk of suicide by decedent or the correctional officers'
awareness and deliberate indifference to it. In response, plaintiffs argue that their claim
has been plausibly pied and that the law at issue is clearly established.

5

Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally immune
from liability for civil damages when their conduct does "not violate clearly established
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (citations omitted). To establish a case

that overcomes qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts "showing (1) that the
official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly
established at the time of the challenged conduct." Mammaro v. New Jersey Div. Of
Child Prof. & Permanency, 2016 WL 683637, at *3 (3d Cir. Feb. 19, 2016). A right is

"clearly established" when "[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a
reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson
v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987); accord In re City of Phi/a. Litig., 49 F.3d 945,

961 (3d Cir.1995).
When a prisoner commits suicide, there is an established due process right
action as well as an Eighth Amendment right of action. There is a clearly established
"standard of liability to be applied in [the Third Circuit] in prison suicide cases." Colburn
v. Upper Darby Twp., 946 F.2d 1017, 1023 (3d Cir. 1991) (quotations omitted) ("Colburn

//"). "If custodial officials kn[e]w or should [have] know[n] of the particular vulnerability to
suicide of an inmate, then the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on them an obligation
not to act with reckless indifference to that vulnerability." Id. Similarly, "prison officials
violate the Eighth Amendment's proscription of cruel and unusual punishment when
they exhibit deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners." Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, in order to successfully plead a cognizable
constitutional claim in cases of prisoner suicide, the plaintiff "has the burden of

6

establishing three elements: (1) the detainee had a particular vulnerability to suicide, (2)
the custodial officer or officers knew or should have known of that vulnerability, and (3)
those officers acted with reckless indifference to the detainee's particular vulnerability."
Colburn If, 946 F.2d at 1023 (quotations omitted). See also Thomas v. Fayette County,
2016 WL 3639887, at *12 (W.D. Pa. July 8, 2016); Wallace v. James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center, 2013 WL 1395878, at *3 (D. Del. April 4, 2013).
Under the first element, plaintiff must show that there was a "strong likelihood,
rather than a mere possibility, that self-inflicted harm will occur." Colburn If, 946 F.2d at
1024; see also Wargo v. Schuylkill County, 348 Fed. App'x. at 759 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 9,
2009). "It is not enough to show that the detainee fits within a category of persons who
may be more likely to commit suicide. Instead, in [a] case, [plaintiff] has the burden of
demonstrating that [decedent] himself had a particular vulnerability to suicide." Wargo,
348 Fed. Appx. at 759. In this case, decedent's recent withdrawal treatment in addition
to his indications to multiple officers that he intended to injure himself is sufficient to
plausibly demonstrate his particular vulnerability to suicide.
Regarding the second element, plaintiff must show defendants were "aware of
facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm

existed and that [defendants] drew the inference." Renee v. Wetzel, 2016 WL 707486 at
*4 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2016)(quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)); see
also Natale v. Camden County Correctional Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003)
In this case, plaintiffs have plausibly pied facts sufficient to demonstrate defendants'
subjective awareness of decedent's particular vulnerability. Knowledge of decedent's
withdrawal and comments by decedent indicating that he may injure himself suffice to

7

show that prison officials could have drawn an inference that decedent may injure
himself. Moreover, although prison officials are not required to believe everything
inmates tell them, even when the topic is suicide, it is essential that prison officials
seriously consider all comments related to self-injury made by an individual who
displays a particular vulnerability to harming himself or herself. Goetsch v. Ley, 444
Fed. Appx. 85, 88-89 (7th Cir. 2011); Domino v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 239
F.3d 752, 753 (5th Cir. 2001).
Under the third element, it must be shown that officers, while aware of the
detainee's particular vulnerability to suicide, were recklessly indifferent to the detainee's
particularized needs. Wallace, 2013 WL 1395878, at *3. Plaintiffs have plausibly pied
defendants' reckless indifference to decedent's particular vulnerability to suicide,
satisfying this element. Defendants' failure to follow routine housing assignments or to
perform timely rounds while being aware of decedent's particular vulnerability to suicide
is sufficient to plausibly demonstrate a reckless indifference to decedent's particularized
needs.
Therefore, in this case, the constitutional right is clearly established consistent
with Third Circuit caselaw. Taking the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint
as true, the complaint at bar has sufficiently pied a cognizable constitutional claim. The
State defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.

8

V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the State defendants' motion to dismiss (D.I. 9) is
denied. An appropriate order shall issue.

9