United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
TAWNA Z. NEALMAN, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Benjamin Shelley Nealman, Plaintiff
v.
ROBERT MABEN, CHRISTIAN Z. SNOOK, TIFFANIE N. WERT, MICHELLE K. HUFFMAN, and BARRY KEARNS, Defendants
MEMORANDUM
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, CHIEF JUDGE
Plaintiff
Tawna Z. Nealman commenced this civil rights action on behalf
of the estate of her late husband, Benjamin Shelley Nealman.
Plaintiff asserts various constitutional and state-law claims
against several employees of the Mifflin County Correctional
Facility arising from Nealman’s suicide during his
detention in August 2013. The parties have filed
cross-motions for summary judgment as to all claims and
parties remaining.
I.
Factual Background & Procedural History
[1]
The
material facts underlying this litigation are largely
undisputed. On August 13, 2013, at around 2:00 p.m.,
Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Ryan Laughlin
(“Trooper Laughlin”) was dispatched to
Impressions Printings Company, a business located in
Mifflintown, Pennsylvania, for reports of a possible
shooting. (Doc. 84 ¶ 1; Doc. 94 ¶ 1). On arrival,
Trooper Laughlin observed plaintiffs late husband, Benjamin
Shelley Nealman (“Nealman”), “lying on the
floor behind a desk in the back of the office, clenching a
stun gun and a pair of brass knuckles.”[2](Doc. 84 ¶ 2;
Doc. 94 ¶ 2). Nealman was confused, sweating, and
breathing heavily, and he claimed that someone had attempted
to shoot him from across the river, that his stun gun had
been shot, and that he had been shot in the back. (Doc. 84
¶¶ 3-5; Doc. 94 ¶¶ 3-5). Trooper Laughlin
observed no gunshot wounds and concluded that Nealman was
“simply delusional.” (Doc. 84 ¶¶ 4, 6;
Doc. 94 ¶¶ 4, 6). Nealman told Trooper Laughlin
that he had ingested bath salts, Vicodin, and No-Doz pills
earlier that day. (Doc. 84 ¶ 7; Doc. 94 ¶ 7).
Trooper
Laughlin arrested Nealman on charges of use or possession of
drug paraphernalia, possession of an offensive weapon, and
disorderly conduct, (Doc. 84 ¶ 8; Doc. 94 ¶ 8;
see Doc. 84-25 at 2-3), and transported him first to
the state police barracks and then to a magisterial district
court for arraignment, (Doc. 84 ¶¶ 9, 12; Doc. 94
¶¶ 9, 12). After Nealman was arraigned, Trooper
Laughlin transported him to Mifflin County Correctional
Facility (“MCCF”). (Doc. 84 ¶ 14; Doc. 94
¶ 14). Nealman was quiet during the transports and did
not exhibit any unusual behavior or make any statements
suggesting an intent to harm himself or others. (Doc. 84
¶¶ 10-11, 13, 15).[3] Trooper Laughlin testified that
he had no concerns that Nealman was at risk of harming
himself or others when he dropped Nealman off at MCCF.
(See Laughlin Dep. 58:11-19, 63:7-19).
The
intake procedure at MCCF consists of two phases: booking and
classification. (Doc. 84 ¶ 17; Doc. 94 ¶ 17).
Booking is the “initial screening and observation of
each new commitment and occurs at or near the time of
intake.” (Doc. 84 ¶ 18; Doc. 94 ¶ 18). The
classification phase follows and may take up to 14 days to
complete. (Doc. 84 ¶ 18; Doc. 94 ¶ 18).
Classification produces the ultimate inmate housing
assignment after review and approval by medical, counseling,
and security staff. (Doc. 84 ¶ 18; Doc. 94 ¶ 18).
The first steps upon arrival of a new commitment are for the
booking officer to verify the identity of the transporting
officer and the detainee and to examine all legal documents
accompanying the detainee “to insure they meet proper
standards.” (Doc. 86-3 at 1).
During
the intake process, prison officials must complete a number
of screening forms, including a Classification
Checklist/Reception Checklist (the “Reception
Checklist”), Initial Receiving Screening Form, Physical
Examination Form, and Suicide Screening Questionnaire. (Doc.
84 ¶ 19; Doc. 94 ¶ 19). Officials must also input
certain data into the facility’s computerized offender
management system. (See Doc. 84 ¶ 19; Doc. 94
¶ 19). MCCF policy states that officers must assess the
detainee based on “personal observations and
information reported by the arresting officer or the
transporting authority.” (Doc. 86-6). MCCF staff
testified that, in practice, they rely
“predominately” on their own observations to
“gauge the demeanor of the inmate.” (Doc. 86-16,
Snook Dep. 32:2-33:2; Doc. 86-17, Kearns Dep. 24:6-27:2;
see also Doc. 86-14, Maben Dep. 61:22-63:9).
Correctional
officer Robert Maben (“Maben”) was the booking
officer on duty when Nealman arrived at MCCF. (Doc. 84 ¶
26; Doc. 85 ¶ 5; Doc. 92 ¶ 5; Doc. 94 ¶ 26).
Lieutenant Michelle K. Huffman (“Huffman”),
formerly known as Michelle K. Weaver, was the shift
supervisor. (Doc. 84 ¶ 27; Doc. 86 ¶ 6; Doc. 92
¶ 6; Doc. 94 ¶ 27). Maben completed the first ten
questions on Nealman’s Reception Checklist immediately
upon intake. (Doc. 84 ¶¶ 28, 37; Doc. 94
¶¶ 28, 37). Nealman’s completed Reception
Checklist is reproduced below:
(Image
Omitted)
(Doc. 86-7). As the form reflects, Maben checked
“no” for “signs of possible mental
disturbance” and “signs of possible
suicide.” (Id.) Maben checked
“yes” for “skin in poor condition”
and “signs of possible intoxication.”
(Id.) In a section titled “Observation
concerning the inmate during reception processing, ”
Maben wrote “open sores on face, took bath salts last
at 2:30 (app) on 8-13-13.” (Id.) Maben
testified that, other than these observations, he did not
recall anything “out of the ordinary” as to
Nealman’s booking. (Doc. 84 ¶ 34; Maben Dep.
101:18-102:1).
The
bottom section of the Reception Checklist form states:
“If yes is answered to the following questions, make
immediate referral as indicated.” (Doc. 86-7). The form
then assigns a department to each of the 13 enumerated
questions. For example, “yes” answers to
questions 1 through 6 are referred to the medical department,
and “yes” answers for questions 7 through 11 must
be referred to a psychiatrist or counselor. (Id.)
MCCF staff explained that an “immediate referral”
requires the detainee to be seen by the assigned department
within 14 days of admission. (Doc. 84 ¶ 24). The parties
dispute whether immediate referral is mandated for
any “yes” answer, as the form’s
language suggests, or only when, in a supervisor’s
discretion, it appears that the detainee is in immediate need
of a mental health evaluation. (See Doc. 84
¶¶ 23-25; Doc. 86 ¶¶ 55-65; Doc. 92
¶¶ 55-65; Doc. 94 ¶¶ 23-25).
Intake
booking officers often complete the initial booking
steps-such as searches, showers, and the first ten questions
of the Reception Checklist-and leave the remaining steps to
be completed by an officer on a later shift. (See
Maben Dep. 12:21-13-8; see also Doc. 84 ¶ 21;
Doc. 94 ¶ 21). Maben testified that he followed this
procedure in Nealman’s case because MCCF was
“extremely busy” that night.[4](See
Maben Dep. 13:2; Doc. 84 ¶ 37; see also Doc. 86
¶ 41; Doc. 92 ¶ 41; Doc. 94 ¶ 37). After Maben
completed the first part of the Reception Checklist, he
placed Nealman in a holding cell in the booking area
overnight. (See Doc. 84 ¶ 38; Doc. 94 ¶
38). Maben issued a spork, knife, two bedsheets, and a
pillowcase to Nealman. (Doc. 86 ¶ 48; Doc. 92 ¶
48).
Correctional
officer Christian Z. Snook (“Snook”) completed
the booking process with Nealman on the morning of August 14,
2013. (Doc. 84 ¶ 40; Doc. 94 ¶ 40). While
completing the Initial Receiving Screening Form, Nealman
disclosed (and Snook documented) that he had ingested bath
salts the day before and had attempted suicide 13 years
prior. (Doc. 84 ¶¶ 42-43; Doc. 94 ¶¶
42-43; see Doc. 84-5). Snook noted that Nealman was
cooperative, relaxed, and denied that he was currently
suicidal. (Doc. 84 ¶ 44; Doc. 94 ¶ 44; see
Doc. 84-5).
Snook
also completed a Suicide Screening Questionnaire with
Nealman. (Doc. 84 ¶ 45; Doc. 94 ¶ 45; see
Doc. 84-7). The questionnaire includes 18 “yes or
no” prompts with space for comments. (Doc. 84-7).
Nealman’s questionnaire appears below:
(Image
Omitted)
(Id.) Snook checked “yes” for both
“psychiatric history” and “previous suicide
attempt > 3 months ago” based on Nealman’s
disclosure of an attempted suicide by overdose in 2000.
(Id.) While completing the questionnaire, Nealman
told Snook that he and his wife were separated. (Doc. 84
¶ 46; Doc. 94 ¶ 46). Snook indicated that Nealman
was not worried about major life problems other than his
criminal case; that he did not show signs of depression or
appear anxious, afraid, or angry; and that he did not express
feelings of despondency. (See Doc. 84-7). Snook
noted that Nealman again denied current suicidality. (Doc. 84
¶ 49; Doc. 84-7).
Snook
observed that Nealman “was compliant, generally clean,
[and] spoke well” and that “nothing really sticks
out in my mind when I processed him that would have caused
any concern or would have been anything out of the
ordinary.” (Doc. 84 ¶ 40). Based on the
questionnaire, Nealman was determined to be a “low risk
of suicide” and cleared for general population with
routine medical and counseling referrals. (Doc. 84
¶¶ 50-53; Doc. 94 ¶¶ 50-53). During
booking, Snook explained to Nealman the process for obtaining
healthcare services at MCCF if Nealman wished to do so. (Doc.
84 ¶ 54; Doc. 94 ¶ 54). Lieutenant Barry Kearns
(“Kearns”), Snook’s shift supervisor,
reviewed the forms completed by Snook and approved
Nealman’s placement in general population pending
routine medical and mental health reviews. (Doc. 84
¶¶ 41, 55; Doc. 94 ¶¶ 41, 55). Neither
Snook nor Kearns made “immediate referrals” based
on the two “yes” answers (concerning skin
condition and intoxication) on Nealman’s reception
checklist. (See Snook Dep. 119:18-120:9).
Tiffanie
Wert (“Wert”), a registered nurse at MCCF, met
with Nealman next for a medical review. (Doc. 84 ¶ 56;
Doc. 94 ¶ 56; see Doc. 84-6). Wert examined
Nealman and agreed with the recommendation to place him in
general population. (Doc. 84 ¶ 56; Doc. 94 ¶ 56).
Wert reviewed the booking paperwork, including the Reception
Checklist and the Initial Receiving Screening Form, and
discussed Nealman’s drug use and prior suicide attempt
with him. (Doc. 84 ¶¶ 58-59; Doc. 94 ¶¶
58-59). Nealman disclosed that he had consumed bath salts the
day before and had attempted suicide by overdose in 2000.
(Doc. 84 ¶¶ 60-61; Doc. 94 ¶¶ 60-61).
Wert did not observe signs of hallucination, shaking, or any
other symptoms of mental illness during the examination.
(Doc. 84 ¶ 62; Doc. 94 ¶ 62). Nealman expressly
denied that he was currently suicidal when questioned by
Wert, (Doc. 84 ¶ 63; Doc. 94 ¶ 63), and Wert
testified that she had no concern that Nealman was a danger
to himself or others based on the examination. (Doc. 84
¶ 64; Doc. 94 ¶ 64).
Nealman
was placed in “E-Block, ” the special needs
housing unit, pending completion of a mental health
examination and final classification. (Doc. 84 ¶¶
66-67; Doc. 94 ¶¶ 66-67; Snook Dep. 54:12-55:4,
76:21-77:16). On August 15, 2013, two days after his arrest,
Nealman called his mother. (See Doc. 84 ¶ 73;
Doc. 94 ¶ 73). Nealman’s mother testified that
Nealman was “lucid” and “sober”
during the call but that he “didn’t sound
right” and seemed “down.” (Doc. 84 ¶
74; Doc. 94 ¶ 74). On August 16, 2013, Nealman called
Colello Bail Bonds at approximately 9:30 a.m. and again at
approximately 11:35 a.m. (Doc. 84 ¶¶ 75-76; Doc. 94
¶¶ 75-76). The bondsman informed Nealman during the
second call that he was unable to post Nealman’s bail.
(Doc. 84 ¶ 77; Doc. ¶ 77).
At
12:23 p.m., surveillance footage shows Nealman entering his
cell. (Doc. 84 ¶ 79; Doc. 94 ¶ 79). At 12:37 p.m.,
correctional officer James M. Lewis (“Lewis”)
discovered Nealman hanging by a bedsheet in his cell. (Doc.
84 ¶ 80; Doc. 94 ¶ 80). Lewis immediately called a
“code blue, ” and medical and corrections staff
promptly responded. (Doc. 84 ¶ 81; Doc. 94 ¶ 81).
Emergency medical services arrived and transported Nealman to
Lewistown Hospital. (Doc. 84 ¶ 82; Doc. 94 ¶ 82).
Nealman passed away at Lewiston Hospital on August 20, 2013.
(Doc. 84 ¶ 83; Doc. 94 ¶ 83).
Plaintiff
commenced this action on August 12, 2015, and the case is
currently proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended
complaint. After Rule 12(b) motion practice and a stipulation
between the parties, the following claims and defendants
remain: a claim for deliberate indifference to
Nealman’s particular vulnerability to suicide pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all defendants (Count 1); a
claim for supervisory liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Huffman and Kearns (Count 2); a state-law claim
for medical negligence against Wert (Count 3); and a
...