Beers v. Northumberland County

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SHERRY BEERS, Administrator of No. 4:22-CV-01101

The ESTATE OF SEAN R. BEERS,

Deceased, (Chief Judge Brann)

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY,

BRUCE KOVACH, Individually

SAMUEL J. SCHICCATANO,

JOSEPH M. KLEBON, KYMBERLEY

L. BEST, and MARY DOE,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JULY 27, 2023

Sean R. Beers (“Decedent”), the deceased son of Plaintiff Sherry Beers,

tragically committed suicide while detained at Northumberland County Jail (the

“Jail”) in Coal Township, Pennsylvania. Beers has since filed suit on behalf of her

son’s estate, alleging several civil rights and state-law tort claims against

Northumberland County (the “County”), which operates the jail; Bruce Kovach, the

Jail’s warden; Samuel J. Schiccatano, Joseph M. Klebon and Kymberley L. Best, the

County’s elected Commissioners;1 and Mary Doe, an unidentified County

1 The Court will refer to Defendants Kovach, Schiccatano, Klebon, and Best as the “Supervisor

correctional officer. Her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that

Defendants’ failure to place Decedent on a suicide watch list and appropriately house

and monitor him violated his constitutional rights and Pennsylvania state law.

Defendants move to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim. For the following

reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Underlying Facts

Decedent was arrested and incarcerated in the Jail on or about May 12, 2021,

on charges of aggravated assault and disorderly conduct.2 At the time, the Jail was

inadequately staffed to monitor detainees with suicidal tendencies.3 Beers alleges

that prior to May 18, 2021, Decedent was determined to be at risk of suicide but does

not explain who made that determination or how they made it.4 Beers also alleges

that other detainees and inmates at the Jail committed suicide in the past using their

bedsheets as ligatures but does not identify precisely when these prior suicides

occurred.5 But on May 18, 2021, Decedent appeared before the Honorable John

Gembic for a preliminary hearing wearing a suicide protection suit.6

2 FAC, Doc. 17 ¶¶ 14-15.

3 Id. ¶¶ 22-23.

4 Id. ¶ 16.

5 Id. ¶ 34.

Both before and following Decedent’s preliminary hearing, he was not placed

on the suicide watchlist by the he Jail’s employees.7 On September 15, 2021,

Decedent committed suicide in his cell.8 He was transported by ambulance to a local

hospital, where he was pronounced dead.9 Beers alleges that immediately prior to

Decedent’s suicide, the area near his cell was staffed by an unidentified female

correctional officer who Beers terms “Mary Doe.”10 Doe left Decedent unattended

in his cell to “flirt” with another inmate.11

B. Procedural History

Beers alleges that all Defendants violated Decedent’s rights under the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments and are accordingly liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Count I)12 and that the County is liable under section 1983 and Monell v.

Department of Social Services of the City of New York for its failure to adequately

staff the Jail and/or train its employees on suicide prevention (Count II)13. In

addition, Beers brings a state-law wrongful death claim (Count III)14 and a survival

claim (Count IV)15.

7 Id. ¶ 31.

8 Id. ¶ 25.

9 Id. ¶ 24.

10 Id. ¶ 28.

11 Id. ¶ 29.

12 Id. ¶¶ 39-45.

13 Id. ¶¶ 46-51.

14 Id. ¶¶ 52-57.

II. LAW

Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court

dismisses a complaint, in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly16 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal17, “[t]o survive a motion to

dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”18

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed that

“[u]nder the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing

the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps”: (1) “take note of the elements

the plaintiff must plead to state a claim”; (2) “identify allegations that, because they

are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth”; and (3)

“assume the[] veracity” of all “well-pleaded factual allegations” and then “determine

whether they give rise to an entitlement to relief.”19

16 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

17 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

18 Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

19 Connelly v. Lane Construction Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotations

III. ANALYSIS

A. Beers Fourteenth Amendment Claim20

Count I alleges that Defendants violated the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments by demonstrating deliberate and reckless indifference to Decedent’s

medical needs, resulting in Decedent’s suicide.21 Defendants argue that Beers fails

to factually allege a constitutional violation, which ultimately dooms her section

1983 and Monell claim.22 They specifically argue that Beers cannot demonstrate any

of the individual Defendants’ personal involvement in the alleged constitutional

violation.23

To assert a Fourteenth Amendment claim arising from a jail suicide such as

the one raised in Count I, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the decedent had a particular

vulnerability to suicide, meaning that there was a “strong likelihood” and not just a

“mere possibility” that self-inflicted harm would occur; (2) the custodial officer or

officers knew or should have known of the decedent’s vulnerability; and (3) those

officers acted with reckless or deliberate indifference, meaning something beyond

20 As a pretrial detainee, Decedent’s rights are governed by the Fourteenth Amendment rather

than the Eighth Amendment, which only applies after an individual has been convicted of an

offense. See Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 222 (3d Cir. 2017) (concluding “that the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides pretrial detainees at least as much

protection for personal security as the level guaranteed to prisoners by the Eighth

Amendment.”). Additionally, Beers explains that her state-law actions (Counts III and IV) rise

and fall with her constitutional claims alleged in Counts I and II. Opp., Doc. 22 at 9.

Accordingly, the Court only addresses Counts I and II.

21 FAC, Doc. 17 ¶¶ 39-45.

22 See MTD Br., Doc. 20 at 5-7.

mere negligence, with respect to the decedent’s vulnerability.24 With respect to the

Supervisor Defendants, Beers must meet the standards to impose supervisory

liability. To do so, a plaintiff must show that the supervisor “knew or w[as] aware

of and disregarded an excessive risk to the plaintiff[‘s] health or safety” or that the

risk was “obvious.”25

In addition a section 1983 plaintiff must show that individual defendants were

personally involved in the constitutional violation.26 “Personal involvement can be

shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual knowledge and

acquiescence,” but “[a]llegations of participation or actual knowledge and

acquiescence . . . must be made with appropriate particularity.”27

1. Decedent’s Vulnerability to Suicide

To establish a particular vulnerability to suicide, a plaintiff must establish that

there is a “strong likelihood, rather than a mere possibility, that self-inflicted harm

will occur.”28 This finding can be supported by a documented history of depression,

suicidal or self-harming tendencies, or drug use, as well as prior psychiatric

diagnosis or care.29 However, even when a decedent has a significant history of

24 Colburn v. Upper Darby Tp., 946 F.2d 1017, 1023 (3d Cir. 1991).

25 Palakovic, 854 F.3d at 225, 225 n.17 (quoting Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 135 (3d

Cir. 2001)).

26 See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988).

27 Id.

28 Colburn, 946 F.2d at 1024.

29 See Vargo ex rel. Vargo v. Plum Borough, 376 F. App’x 212, 216, (3d Cir. 2010) (finding no

particular vulnerability to suicide when detainee had no history of mental health problems and

did not act abnormally or give indication that he would harm himself); McAndrew v.

suicide attempts, this Court has found that when a significant amount of time has

passed without the decedent demonstrating suicidal ideation, the decedent cannot be

found to present a particular vulnerability to suicide.30

The FAC alleges that Decedent was determined to be a suicidal threat prior to

May 18, 2021, and that he attended a preliminary hearing on May 18 wearing a

suicide protection suit.31 Although the FAC does not explicitly connect those two

events, the Court presumes that Beers’ argument is that Decedent’s appearance in a

suicide protection suit afforded Defendants sufficient notice that he was a suicide

risk. But the FAC does not include any information about the circumstances that led

to Decedent being put in a suicide protection suit for the May 18, 2021 hearing and

whether Defendants were aware of said circumstances.32 And although Beers alleges

that Defendants failed to place Decedent on the suicide watch list during his

incarceration at the Jail, she doesn’t allege any facts regarding Decedent’s mental

detainee going through drug withdrawal had a particular vulnerability to suicide); Kapa v.

Palakovich, 2011 WL 5520321 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2011) (concluding that a decedent who had

been in and out of psychiatric care at least fifteen times during his incarceration, threatened

and attempted self-harm, and told psychiatric staff that he wanted to end his life could be found

to have a particular vulnerability); Finney v. Palakovich, 2010 WL 2902731, at *4 (M.D. Pa.

July 3, 2010) (finding that decedent who had been in and out of psychiatric care nearly every

month for 6 months and had harmed himself with a razor had a particular vulnerability to

suicide).

30 Hinton v. U.S., 2015 WL 737584, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2015) (finding that decedent with

three prior suicide attempts did not have a particular vulnerability to suicide because he did not

demonstrate any suicidal ideation for six years after being taken off antidepressant medication).

31 FAC, Doc. 17 ¶¶ 16-17.

health for the approximately four-month period between the preliminary hearing and

his suicide on September 15, 2021.33

Accordingly, the only facts that support that Decedent was particularly

vulnerable to suicide are: (1) the alleged determination that he was a risk without an

identification of who made the determination and (2) and his appearance in a suicide

prevention vest. These facts alone do not plausibly allege that there was a “strong

likelihood” that Decedent would harm himself. There are no facts suggesting that

Decedent had any history of depression, suicide or self-harm attempts, psychiatric

care, drug use, or mental illness of any kind prior to his arrest and incarceration or

that Decedent presented any such behavior in the four months between his

appearance in the suicide vest and his ultimate suicide. Courts have noted that a

detainee or inmate’s presence in a facility without placement on a suicide watchlist

indicates that they were not a suicide risk.34

2. Defendants’ Knowledge of Decedent’s Vulnerability to

Suicide

A plaintiff must also plead facts that show that the decedent’s strong

likelihood of suicide was so obvious that a layperson would easily recognize the

33 Id. ¶ 31. Although the FAC is silent on this issue, the Court presumes that Decedent was taken

back to the Jail following the preliminary hearing.

34 See Woloszyn v. County of Lawrence, 396 F.3d 314, 317 (3d Cir. 2005) (finding that when

decedent was not placed on suicide watch supported that defendants did not have knowledge

of strong likelihood of self-harm); McAndrew, 2023 WL 408905, at *4 (“The Jail's decision to

classify Ms. McAndrew as a detainee on suicide watch demonstrates that the Jail

administrators who made that decision had subjective knowledge of Ms. McAndrew's

necessity of preventative action.35 That element of a Fourteenth Amendment

suicide-prevention claim dovetails with the general requirement that civil rights

plaintiff adequately allege the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional

violation. Essentially, a plaintiff in Beers’ shoes must show that the relevant

defendant was personally aware of facts indicating the decedent’s particular

vulnerability to suicide.

Beers again relies on the fact that Decedent was allegedly determined to be a

suicide risk and subsequently placed in a suicide protection suit for his court

appearance.36 But Beers fails to allege who initially determined Decedent was a

suicide risk prior to May 18, 2021, who put him in a suicide protection suit for his

May court appearance, or who saw him in the vest.37 Presumably, someone who

worked for the Jail did. But Beers cannot identify a particular defendant who was

aware of these facts. She doesn’t allege that Doe was involved in the May 2021

decision regarding Decedent’s suicide risk or observed Decedent in a suicide

protection suit either before, during, or after the hearing. Nor does she offer a factual

explanation of how the Supervisor Defendants might have learned of Decedent’s

vulnerability.

35 Colburn, 946 F.2d at 1025.

36 FAC, Doc. 17 ¶¶ 16-18.

Therefore, even if the Decedent did demonstrate a particular vulnerability to

suicide, the FAC does not sufficiently allege facts that Defendants were aware or

should have been aware of it.38

B. Monell Claim39

Beers also brings a Monell claim for municipal liability.40 Defendants contend

that no unconstitutional municipal custom or policy exists.41 Under the Monell

standard, institutional public defendants like the County cannot be held vicariously

liable for the unconstitutional acts of their employees.42 Rather, they are liable under

§ 1983 for a policy, practice, or custom that leads to violation of a plaintiff’s

constitutional rights.43

38 The Court’s conclusion requires dismissal of Beers’ claims against Kovach, who Beers sues in

his individual capacity and Doe, whom the Court presumes Beers sues in her individual

capacity. As for the Schiccatano, Klebon, and Best, Beers does not identify whether she sues

them in their official or personal capacities. In an abundance of caution, the Court will assume

both. Therefore, the Court dismisses any personal-capacity claims against Schiccatano,

Klebon, and Best. In addition, as the Court concludes that Beers fails to adequately allege a

constitutional violation, it need not address the individual Defendants’ qualified immunity

defense. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (providing that one element of the

qualified immunity defense is that the defendant violated a constitutional right).

39 To the extent that Beers sues Schiccatano, Klebon, and Best in their official capacities, those

claims are essentially claims against the County itself, and therefore subject to the same Monell

standard for institutional liability. See Monell, 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978) (“[A]n

official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the

entity.”).

40 In addition, the Court notes that Count II is essentially duplicative of Count I with respect to

the County. Count I alleges that all Defendants (including the County) violated Decedent’s

constitutional rights and are liable under section 1983. That would include Beers’ claim against

the individual Defendants and her Monell claim against the institutional Defendants, which is

separately alleged in Count II.

41 Opp., Doc. 20 at 15.

42 See Stoneking v. Bradford Area Sch. Dist., 882 F.2d 720, 724 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing Monell,

436 U.S. at 691).

In addition to alleging the existence of a policy or custom, “[a] plaintiff must

also allege that the policy or custom was the ‘proximate cause’ of [their] injuries.”44

To show such causation a plaintiff may demonstrate an “affirmative link” between

the custom and the constitutional violation by showing that the defendant had

knowledge of “similar unlawful conduct in the past, . . . failed to take precautions

against future violations, and that [its] failure, at least in part, led to [the plaintiff’s]

injury.”45

Beers appears to allege that the County engaged in an unconstitutional custom

by failing to “hire and properly train its correctional officers” in “handling inmates

with suicide risk”—the “obvious consequence” of which is “Decedent’s untimely

death.”46 The Court separates Beers’ claims into two theories of liability: (1) the

County’s failure to adequately train its employees and (2) the County’s failure to

adequately staff the Jail with sufficient employees.

In the failure-to-train context, a plaintiff “must demonstrate that [an

institutional defendant’s] failure to train its employees ‘reflects a deliberate or

conscious choice.’”47 “A plaintiff sufficiently pleads deliberate indifference by

44 Estate of Roman v. City of Newark, 914 F.3d 789, 798 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing Kneipp v. Tedder,

95 F.3d 1199, 1213 (3d Cir. 1996)).

45 Id. (quoting Bielevicz v. Dubinon, 915 F.2d 845, 851 (3d Cir. 1990)).

46 Opp., Doc. 22 at 8. Beers does not appear to allege an unconstitutional policy as there is no

reference to “an official proclamation, policy, or [an] edict” in the FAC. Roman, 914 F.3d at

798. By contrast, a custom “can be proven by showing that a given course of conduct, although

not specifically endorsed or authorized by law, is so well-settled and permanent as virtually to

constitute law.” Id. (citing Bielevicz v. Dubinon, 915 F.2d 845, 850 (3d Cir. 1990)).

47 Roman, 914 F.3d at 798 (quoting Brown v. Muhlenberg Twp., 269 F.3d 205, 215 (3d Cir.

showing that ‘(1) municipal policymakers know that employees will confront a

particular situation[,] (2) the situation involves a difficult choice or a history of

employees mishandling[,] and (3) the wrong choice by an employee will frequently

cause deprivation of constitutional rights.’”48

In Colburn .v Upper Darby Township, another prison-suicide case, our Court

of Appeals explained that, to impose Monell liability for a prison suicide for a

municipality’s failure to train its employees, a plaintiff must:

(1) identify specific training not provided that could reasonably be

expected to prevent the suicide that occurred, and (2) must demonstrate

that the risk reduction associated with the proposed training is so great

and so obvious that the failure of those responsible for the content of

the training program to provide it can reasonably be attributed to a

deliberate indifference to whether the detainees succeed in taking their

lives.49

Beers fails to identify any training that could have been provided to the Jail’s

employees that would have reduced the risk of Decedent’s untimely death.50 For

instance, Beers alleges that Defendants should have known to place Decedent in a

suicide prevention cell and failed to periodically monitor him.51 But the FAC doesn’t

allege that the County failed to train its employees to take such actions.

48 Id. (quoting Doe v. Luzerne County, 660 F.3d 169, 180 (3d Cir. 2011)) (alterations in original).

49 Colburn, 946 F.2d at 1030.

50 See id. Colburn was an appeal of an order granting summary judgment. Id. Accordingly, Beers

need not have detailed factual allegations of the specific training deficiencies. But the FAC

fails to allege any training deficiencies.

In addition, the FAC fails to sufficiently allege the existence of a custom. In

these circumstances, a plaintiff can show a custom “where the policymaker has

failed to act affirmatively at all, [although] the need to take some action to control

the agents of the government is so obvious, and the inadequacy of existing practice

so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymaker can

reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.”52

Beers does allege that Defendants knew or should have known about prior

prison suicides. But that sole allegation is insufficient to show that Defendants acted

with deliberate indifference. Beers fails to identify how many suicides took place

prior to Decedent’s, when they occurred, whether those inmates were on the

watchlist, or whether their suicides occurred in a manner similar to the way Decedent

took his life.53 Without that information, Beers cannot show the deliberate

indifference necessary for her Monell claim.

As for Beers’ failure-to-sufficiently-staff theory, the Third Circuit’s opinion

in Robinson v. Fair Acres Geriatric Center appears to foreclose it.54 There, the court

noted that the plaintiff “failed to cite any cases in which Monell liability was assessed

52 Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 584 (3d Cir. 2003).

53 The FAC alleges that inmates used their bedsheets to attempt and/or commit suicide in the

past. FAC, Doc. 17 ¶ 34. Beers doesn’t say whether Decedent also used his bedsheets or used

a different method.

54 In addition, this Court’s analysis regarding the FAC’s failure to allege a custom with respect

to Beers’ failure-to-train theory applies with equal force to Beers’ failure-to-sufficiently-staff

theory. She fails to allege any incidents that would have or should have given Defendants

based on a municipality’s failure to hire a sufficient number of staff” and “failed to

sufficiently allege a link between [the defendants’] hiring practices and the injuries

she sustained.”55 This Court doubts that the failure to sufficiently staff is an adequate

basis for Monell liability. But even if it were, Beers fails to allege any incidents that

would have or should have given Defendants notice of the understaffing problem.

Therefore, there is no unconstitutional custom underlying her Monell claim.

In addition, Beers fails to explain how the Jail’s lack of staff caused

Decedent’s suicide, as was the case in Fair Acres.56 She doesn’t allege that “staff

members were not available or were present too infrequently, for example.”57 She

alleges that Doe was responsible for monitoring Decedent and abdicated that

responsibility, not that Doe was unable to effectively monitor Decedent because the

Jail’s staff was spread too thin. Accordingly, Beers fails to state a Monell claim. As

her state-law claims rise and fall with her constitutional claims, they must be

dismissed as well.

55 722 F. App’x 194 at 199 (3d. Cir. 2018).

56 Id.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and

Beers’ claims are dismissed with prejudice.

An appropriate Order follows.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann

Chief United States District Judge