Kempf v. Wash. Cnty.

ESTATE OF RICHARD A. KEMPF,JR., Deceased, AMANDA KEMPF, Adminstratrix, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1125

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

September 12, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Conti, Chief District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Amanda Kempf, the sister of the decedent, Richard A. Kempf, Jr. (hereinafter "Mr. Kempf" or "decedent") brought this action as administratrix on behalf of the Estate of Richard A. Kempf, Jr. (hereinafter "plaintiff").¹ In the second amended complaint, plaintiff claims that the suicide of Mr. Kempf, a pretrial detainee, resulted from treatment of Mr. Kempf by Dr. Ravindranath Kolli, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Kolli" or "defendant"). (ECF No. 50 ¶¶ 82, 95). Specifically, plaintiff sues Dr. Kolli for: a) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count Five); b) professional negligence under Pennsylvania law (Count Six); c) a state law wrongful death claim under the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8301 (second Count Four):² and d) a state law survival claim under the Pennsylvania SurvivalAct, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8302 (second Count Five). This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331³ and 1367.⁴

Pending before the court is the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 83) filed on behalf of Dr. Kolli with respect to plaintiff's § 1983 claim against him, arguing that there is insufficient evidence that Mr. Kempf had a particular vulnerability to suicide or that Dr. Kolli acted with deliberate indifference to that serious medical need. Defendant urges the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims if it grants summary judgment on the federal claim. (ECF No. 84 at 11). Also pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to strike the affidavit of Dr. Kolli, which was filed in support of his motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 94). As more fully explained below, the motion to strike will be denied, the motion for summary judgment will be denied, and the court will continue to exercise its jurisdiction over the supplemental Pennsylvania law claims. The court concludes that plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Mr. Kempf possessed a particular vulnerability to suicide and that Dr. Kolli acted with deliberate indifference to Mr. Kempf's serious medical need.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff instituted this action against Washington County, Pennsylvania, and John Temas, Warden of the Washington County Jail, in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 1-3). On August 27, 2015, the case was removed to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on March 2, 2016, adding James Emler, corrections officer, and Southwest Behavioral Care, Inc. ("Southwest") as defendants. (ECF No. 22). On September 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, adding Dr. Kolli as a defendant and alleging that Dr. Kolli's actions violated Mr. Kempf's constitutional rights and served as the cause of Mr. Kempf's suicide. (ECF No. 50 ¶¶ 82, 95).

The claims against John Temas were terminated via the June 28, 2016 order granting his motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion. (6/28/2016 Minute Entry). On April 17, 2017, the court granted plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of Southwest. (ECF No. 77). The claims against Washington County and James Emler were dismissed on June 1, 2017 via a stipulation of dismissal. (ECF No. 79). After the close of discovery, Dr. Kolli filed his motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 83).

In support of his motion, Dr. Kolli filed a brief, (ECF No. 84), a concise statement of material facts, (ECF No. 85), an appendix including Dr. Kolli's affidavit, (ECF No. 83-2), a reply brief, (ECF No. 104), and a reply concise statement of material facts. (ECF No. 105). Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Dr. Kolli's affidavit, (ECF No. 94), a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 95), a response concise statement of material facts including additional facts, (ECF No. 97), and an appendix, (ECF No. 102). Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion to strike the affidavit, (ECF No. 98), and plaintiff subsequently filed a reply to defendant's opposition to plaintiff's motion to strike the affidavit. (ECF No. 100).

In accordance with the July 19, 2017 case management order, the parties filed a Combined Concise Statement of Material Facts, (ECF No. 107, hereinafter "CCSMF"), which includesdefendant's concise statement of facts (ECF No. 85), plaintiff's response to the facts asserted by defendant (ECF No. 97) ("Plaintiff's Counter Statement of Material Facts" (PCSMF)), and defendant's responses to plaintiff's counter-statement (ECF No. 105). The CCSMF indicates uncontested facts, disputes about certain facts and disputes about whether a party's response to certain facts asserted are adequate to dispute those facts under the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Chambers' Rule of this court. See LCvR 56.C.1.a and this court's Chambers' Rule 3.F.c.ii.⁵ This matter is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment may only be granted where the moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute of any material fact, and that judgment as a matter of law is warranted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court must enter summary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to his or her case and on which he or she will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In evaluating the evidence, the court must interpret the facts inthe light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in his or her favor. Watson v. Abington Twp., 478 F.3d 144, 147 (3d Cir. 2007).

The burden on a motion for summary judgment is initially on the moving party to demonstrate that the evidence contained in the record does not create a genuine issue of material fact. Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135, 140 (3d Cir. 2004); Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1080 (3d Cir. 1996). A dispute is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable trier of fact could render a finding in favor of the nonmoving party. McGreevy v. Stroup, 413 F.3d 359, 363 (3d Cir. 2005). Where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may meet its burden by showing that the admissible evidence contained in the record would be insufficient to carry the nonmoving party's burden of proof or that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 325; Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290, 295 (3d Cir. 2007).

Once the movant meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial" and to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that there is indeed a genuine and material factual dispute for a jury to decide. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-25. The nonmoving party must go beyond his or her pleadings and designate specific facts by the use of affidavits, depositions, admissions or answers to interrogatories showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The nonmoving party cannot defeat a well-supported motion for summary judgment by simply reasserting unsupported factual allegations contained in his or her pleadings. Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir. 1989).

One of the principal purposes of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. The summary judgment inquiry asks whether there is a need for trial—"whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 250. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to weigh the evidence, make credibility determinations or to determine the truth of the matter, but only to determine whether the evidence of record is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150-51 (2000) (citing decisions); Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248-49; Simpson v. Kay Jewelers, Div. of Sterling, Inc., 142 F.3d 639, 643 n.3 (3d Cir. 1998). The mere existence of a factual dispute, however, will not necessarily defeat a motion for summary judgment. Only a dispute over a material fact—that is, a fact that would affect the outcome of the suit under the governing substantive law—will preclude the entry of summary judgment. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248.

A defendant who moves for summary judgment is not required to refute every essential element of the plaintiff's claim; rather, the defendant must only point out the absence or insufficiency of plaintiff's evidence offered in support of one or more those elements. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. If the evidence the nonmovant produces is "merely colorable, or is not significantly probative," the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249. The nonmoving party must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party must "make a showing sufficient...