Jean v. City of Phila.

604 F.Supp.3d 271

Allrich JEAN, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-433

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed May 23, 2022

Allen W. Rogers, The Rogers Law Firm, Fayetteville, NC, Daniel Purtell, John Joseph Coyle, III, McEldrew Young, Philadelphia, PA, Mark Maguire, Philadelphia Office of City Solicitor, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Derek R. Kane, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants The City of Philadelphia, Warden Michele Farrell, Warden Nancy Gianetta, Prison Commissioner Blanche Carney.

MEMORANDUM

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Allrich Jean, as administrator of the estate of his son, Armani Faison, brings this wrongful death and survival action against Defendants the City of Philadelphia (the "City"), Warden Michelle Farrell, Warden Nancy Gianetta, Prison Commissioner Blanche Carney, and three John Doe corrections officers (collectively "Defendants").

The City moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for negligence as stated in Count III of the Complaint. After holding oral argument, the Court granted the motion and dismissed Count III with prejudice. This memorandum provides the Court's reasoning for granting the motion.

II. BACKGROUND¹

On or about March 24, 2021, Armani Faison was arrested for shoplifting. He was sent to Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility ("CFCF") after being unable to post bail. Upon his admission, Faison underwent a mental health evaluation. The social worker who performed the evaluation found that Faison was engaging in "[b]izarre [b]ehaviors, which may aggravate others putting his safety in danger." Compl. at ¶ 26, ECF No. 1. Despite concerns about Faison's mental health, CFCF staff placed him in a cell with an inmate named Kevin Massey.

The Complaint alleges that just hours before Faison was placed into a cell with Massey, Massey had sexually assaulted his prior cellmate. In response to the reported sexual assault, Defendants simply moved Massey's prior cellmate out of the cell and replaced him with Faison.

At approximately midnight on March 27, 2021, the lights to the cellblock were shut off. After the lights were shut off, witnesses reported hearing screaming from the cell housing Faison and Massey. The Complaint alleges Faison was raped and murdered by Massey in an assault lasting several hours. Throughout the duration of the assault, Faison repeatedly screamed for help, called for the guard, and banged on his cell door. Other inmates also reported banging on their cell doors and yelling for the guards. When a corrections officer finally arrived to check the cell block at approximately 7:38 a.m. the next morning, he found Faison unresponsive in the cell.

Plaintiff alleges that a corrections officer (referred to in the Complaint as "C.O. John Doe #1") had been assigned to monitor the cell block that night but was reassigned to a different area by a different officer ("C.O. John Doe #2"). As a result, the cell block was left completely unattended during the time the assault occurred.

The Complaint alleges that the Philadelphia Department of Prisons, which controls CFCF, has displayed a consistent and systemic failure to maintain proper staffing practices, which has resulted in an increase of inmate deaths directly related to a lack of supervision. The Complaint sets forth a number of facts to support that allegation, including a quote from the City Controller, the conclusions of a report containing self-reported data, and a variety of statistics and observations from city officials. The Complaint also cites two similar lawsuits related to inadequate prison conditions, numerous reports that indicate that staffing was inadequate, statements from inmates, and seven prior incidents of inmates suffering death or serious injury due to unsafe prison conditions.

On February 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint. Under the umbrella of the Pennsylvania statutes governing wrongful death and survival actions, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 8301 and 8302, the Complaint brings three counts: (I) a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against all Defendants; (II) a Fourteenth Amendment municipal liability claim against the City; and (III) a negligence claim against the City.

The City subsequently moved to dismiss Plaintiff's negligence claim against it. For the reasons set forth below, the Court granted the motion.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A party may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When considering such a motion, the Court must "accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." DeBenedictis v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 492 F.3d 209, 215 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Rocks v. City of Philadelphia, 868 F.2d 644, 645 (3d Cir. 1989) ).

To withstand a motion to dismiss, the complaint's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). This "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. Although a plaintiff is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the facts alleged, a plaintiff's legal conclusions are not entitled to deference, and the Court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986).

The pleadings must contain sufficient factual allegations so as to state a facially plausible claim for relief. See, e.g., Gelman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 187, 190 (3d Cir. 2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court limits its inquiry to the facts alleged in the complaint and its attachments, matters of public record, and undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents. See Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994) ; Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993).

IV. DISCUSSION

The City argues that it is immune from Plaintiff's negligence claim because the claim does not fall within any of the exceptions to its governmental immunity as enumerated in the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 8541, et seq. (the "PSTCA").

The PSTCA governs the extent to which political subdivisions, like the City, may be held liable in tort. Section 8542(b) lists nine categories of "negligent acts" which, if committed by a local agency or agency employee, may subject the local agency to liability. 42 Pa. C.S. § 8542(a) - (b). The ninth category, which is relevant to the present motion, encompasses sexual abuse and imposes liability for "conduct which constitutes an offense enumerated under section 5551(7) (relating to no limitation applicable) if the injuries to the plaintiff were caused by actions or omissions of the local agency which constitute negligence." Id. at § 8542(b)(9).

Section 5551(7), explicitly referenced in the sexual abuse exception, provides as follows:

An offense under any of the following provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. (relating to crimes and offenses), or a conspiracy or solicitation to commit an offense under any of the following provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. if the offense results from the conspiracy or solicitation, if the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense:

Section 3011(b) (relating to trafficking in individuals).

Section 3012 (relating to involuntary servitude) as it relates to sexual servitude.

Section 3121 (relating to rape).

Section 3122.1 (relating to statutory sexual assault).

Section 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse).

Section 3124.1 (relating to sexual assault).

Section 3124.2 (relating to institutional sexual assault).

Section 3125 (relating to aggravated indecent assault).

Section 4302 (relating to incest).

42 Pa. C.S. § 5551(7) (emphasis added).

Because the sexual abuse exception explicitly applies in the case of conduct constituting "an offense enumerated under section 5551(7)," 42 Pa. C.S. § 8542(b)(9), and section 5551(7) is limited to offenses in which "the victim was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offense," id. at § 5551(7), the City maintains the sexual abuse exception likewise only applies when the victim of the abuse was a minor. And because Armani Faison was not a minor² at the time of the sexual abuse at issue here, the City argues that Plaintiff's negligence claim is barred.

Plaintiff makes two arguments in opposition. First, he argues that the plain language of the PSTCA's sexual abuse exception does not limit the exception to victims under eighteen. And second, he argues that the City's interpretation of the exception violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As explained more fully below, neither argument is supported by the relevant law.

A. Plain Language of the Statute

Plaintiff first argues that because the sexual abuse exception refers to conduct constituting "an offense enumerated under section 5551(7)," id. at § 8542(b)(9), it should be interpreted to apply only to the list of offenses contained within section 5551(7) and not the preceding qualifier that for the offense to fall under the section, the victim of those offenses must be under 18 years of age.

Plaintiff's proposed interpretation of the sexual abuse exception is not a plain reading of the statute. The age qualifier that Plaintiff attempts to omit from section 5551(7) is essential to what...