Sign Up for Vincent AI
Bull v. Howard
PENBERTHY LAW GROUP, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff BRITTANYLEE PENBERTHY, of Counsel
CONNORS LLP Attorneys for Defendant SHC Services, Inc. MOLLIE CATHERINE McGORRY, of Counsel
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case was referred to the undersigned by Honorable John L Sinatra, Jr. on August 3, 2023, for all pretrial matters including a report and recommendation on dispositive motions. (Dkt. 56). The matter is presently before the court on Defendant SHC Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 48), filed March 24, 2023.
On October 10, 2022, Plaintiff Cynthia Bull (“Plaintiff” or “Bull”), as Administratrix of the Estate of Robert H. Ingalsbe, V (“Decedent” or “Ingalsbe”), commenced this action asserting against Defendants claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) and New York state law for deprivation of adequate medical care, negligent hiring, training and supervision, failure to train, deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process, failure to treat, and municipal liability pursuant to Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Monell”), pertaining to Decedent's arrest on October 10, 2019, pretrial detainment at Erie County Holding Center (“ECHC”), and suicide attempt on October 11, 2019, resulting in Decedent's death on October 12, 2019. Defendants to this action include then Erie County Sheriff Timothy B. Howard (“the Sheriff”), Thomas Diina, Superintendent of the Jail Management Division of the Erie County Sheriff's Department (“Diina”), Erie County Sheriff Deputies Nicholas Milligan (“Milligan”), Jacob Januchowski (“Januchowski”), C P Isch (“Isch”), Justin Bauer (“Bauer”), Nicholas A. Coniglio (“Coniglio”), and Joseph Falletta (“Falletta”), Erie County Sheriff Sergeants Jason Smaczniak (“Smaczniak”), and Slimak (“Slimak”),[1]Department of Sheriff of Erie County Correctional Health Care Unit (“CHCU”) (together, “County Defendants”), CHCU John/Jane Does 1-10 (“Doe Defendants”), and SHC Services, Inc. (“SHC” or “Defendant”).
Prior to commencing the instant action, Plaintiff, on April 6, 2021, filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court, Erie County (“state court”), alleging similar state law claims against the County of Erie (“the County”), Erie County Sheriff's Office (“ECSO”), the Town of Grand Island (“Town”), and the Town of Grand Island Police Department (“Town Police”) (together, “state court defendants”) (“the state court action”). A ruling on a motion to dismiss and a stipulation filed in the state court action by New York State Supreme Court Justice Donna M. Siwek left the state court action pending only against the County. On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed in state court a motion for leave to file an amended complaint seeking to add to the state court action 57 named defendants and Erie County Sheriff's Deputies John Does 1-10, and to assert additional claims including pursuant to state law and § 1983 (“motion to amend”), as well as a proposed amended complaint (“PAC”). On September 19, 2022, while the motion to amend was pending in state court, the County removed the state court action to this court asserting federal question as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction because of the § 1983 federal claim asserted in the PAC. Accordingly, when removed to this court, the state court action, Bull v. County of Erie, 22-CV-704-JLS-LGF (“the removed action”), included only state claims asserted only against the County.
Motions to dismiss the instant action were filed on December 2, 2022, by Defendant CHCU (Dkt. 20) (“CHCU's motion”), on December 15, 2022, by Defendant Sheriff (Dkt. 26) (“Sheriff's motion”), and on January 6, 2023, by Defendants Diina, Milligan, Januchowski, Isch, Bauer, Coniglio, Falleta, Smaczniak, and Slimak (“Sheriff Department Defendants”) (Dkt. 32) (“Sheriff Department Defendants' motion”).
On March 24, 2023, SHC filed the instant motion to dismiss (Dkt. 48) (“Defendant's motion”), attaching the Declaration [of Mollie C. McGorry, Esq.][2]in Support of SHC Services, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 48-1) (“McGorry Declaration”), exhibits A through F (Dkts. 48-2 through 48-7) (“Defendant's Exh(s).__ ”), and the Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant SHC Services Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 48-8) (“Defendant's Memorandum”). On April 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Declaration [of Brittanylee Penberthy, Esq.] in Opposition to Defendants' [sic] Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Dkt. 50) (“Penberthy Declaration”), and Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant SHC Services, Inc.'s Motions [sic] to Dismiss (Dkt. 50-1) (“Plaintiff's Memorandum”). On April 13, 2023, SHC filed the Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendant SHC Services Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 51) (“Defendant's Reply”).
In a Report and Recommendation filed on March 20, 2024 in the removed action (22-CV-704-JLS-LGF, Dkt. 21), the undersigned recommended the removed action be remanded to state court based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the state court had not ruled on the motion to amend prior to removal, such that the PAC was not the operative pleading and the federal claims in the PAC were not part of the removed action which contains only state law claims. In a separate Report and Recommendation filed in the instant action on March 20, 2024 (Dkt. 59) (“the R&R”), the undersigned recommended granting CHCU's motion (Dkt. 20), and dismissing the instant action with prejudice as against CHCU based on Plaintiff's concession that CHCU is not a suable entity; alternatively, if the District Judge remands the removed action to state court, then it was recommended that CHCU's motion (Dkt. 20) be denied based on the first-filed rule or, as a further alternative, granted based on the first-filed rule. The undersigned further recommended that if the District Judge remands the removed action to state court, then the Sheriff's motion (Dkt. 26) and the Sheriff Department Defendants' motion (Dkt. 32) should be denied based on the first-filed rule; alternatively, such motions (Dkts. 26 and 32) should be granted based on the first-filed rule. Oral argument on Defendant's motion was deemed unnecessary.
Based on the following, Defendant's motion should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
FACTS[3]
On August 20, 2019, in the Town of Grand Island, New York (“Grand Island” or “the Town”), Town Court, Judge Kennedy issued an arrest warrant (“the arrest warrant”) pursuant to an Erie County District Attorney indictment charging Robert H. Ingalsbe, V. (“Ingalsbe” or “Decedent”), with violating New York Penal Law § 160.10 (), and § 155.25 (petit larceny), relative to an alleged incident occurring on September 23, 2018, and which charges the Sheriff Department Defendants allegedly knew were false. A known drug addict with a history of mental health issues, Ingalsbe, born October 12, 1985, became addicted to opioids and methadone as a minor, was previously arrested on drug charges by members of the Town of Grand Island Police Department (“the Police”), and the Erie County Sheriff's Department (“Sheriff's Department”).
In the early morning hours of October 10, 2019, Ingalsbe was at the home of his mother, Cynthia Bull (“Bull”), located at 151 Fernwood Lane, Grand Island, New York (“Grand Island”) where, at 5:30 A.M., he was arrested by Erie County Sheriff deputies on the arrest warrant. While in transit to the Grand Island Police Station (“the police station”) where he was to be arraigned on the criminal charges, Ingalsbe placed a call to his sister, Brittany Costa (“Costa”), who, at Ingalsbe's request, was at the police station upon Ingalsbe's arrival. Costa informed the sheriff deputies present that Ingalsbe likely was high on drugs and was making statements consistent with suicidal ideation. Ingalsbe was held at the police station for about two and a half hours until he was transported to the Erie County Holding Center (“ECHC”), where the sheriff deputies who processed Ingalsbe's admission noted Ingalsbe's “need for detox, forensic evaluation and mental health evaluation,” as well as “for special, medical housing,” recommendations which were consistent with information on the “eJusticeNY Integrated Justice portal,” reported in connection with a previous arrest of Ingalsbe, including that Ingalsbe had a substance abuse history. Complaint ¶¶ 68-70. Despite these observations and the admitting deputies' recommendation, Plaintiff was housed in a cell on “Bravo Long,”[4] where he was not monitored and did not receive the recommended professional medical treatment, forensic evaluation, or detox treatment that would have been available in medical housing. Id. ¶¶ 71-72.
During the time relevant to this action, Defendant SHC, pursuant to a contract with the County, provided medical care to those detained at ECHC. On ...
Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting