Bacon v. Luzerne County, 3:23-cv-01699

Background

Plaintiff Joshua Bacon, a pretrial detainee diagnosed with autism and ADHD, was held at Luzerne County Correctional Facility (LCCF) and alleges various constitutional violations during his incarceration in 2021.
Bacon claims he was assaulted by other inmates and that officials failed to protect him, specifically after he was housed with known violent inmates or after he warned officials of threats.
He alleges Luzerne County maintained harmful policies, including placing those accused of PREA violations in solitary confinement (RHU) without procedural protections, and lacking adequate mental health accommodations.
The case is before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on defendants’ motion to partially dismiss the second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court addressed Monell municipal liability, due process violations (procedural and substantive), supervisory liability for individual officials, and remedies mootness due to Bacon’s transfer from LCCF.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is LCCF a proper defendant under § 1983?	LCCF is liable as an institution for alleged violations.	LCCF is not a "person" under § 1983.	Dismissed claim against LCCF; not a proper defendant.
Monell liability for failure to provide due process in RHU	County’s policy put Bacon in RHU without process.	No plausible due process violation; thus no Monell claim.	Allowed Monell claim re: lack of process for two RHU placements.
Monell liability for lack of mental health screening	County had no process to identify inmates at risk in RHU.	No right to such screening; no physical injury alleged.	Dismissed this Monell claim; no constitutional violation stated.
Failure to protect from inmate assaults	Officials knew of threats and failed to act; County liable.	No policy/custom causing harm; no deliberate indifference.	Dismissed claim against County but not the individuals named.
Conditions of RHU confinement as substantive due process	RHU conditions plus mental illness = unconstitutional.	Conditions alone do not amount to punishment.	Dismissed substantive due process claim; conditions not punitive.
Supervisory liability for policy/practice	Supervisors created/enforced harmful policies and were aware.	No personal involvement, only supervisory roles alleged.	Dismissed claims against non-involved supervisors; not personal.
Claims for declaratory/injunctive relief post-transfer	Bacon initially sought injunctive/declaratory relief.	Claims become moot after transfer from LCCF.	Dismissed as moot; plaintiff no longer at facility.
Due process violations by individuals (Mulhorn, Schloss)	Individuals impeded Bacon’s right to process in RHU.	Individuals had limited/minimal involvement.	Denied motion to dismiss; sufficient involvement alleged.

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipalities liable only for official policy/custom causing constitutional harm)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaints must state facially plausible claims to survive dismissal)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for claim sufficiency)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial detainees protected from punishment without due process)
Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983) (minimum process required for administrative confinement)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard in failure to protect claims)
City of L.A. v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (1986) (no municipal liability absent underlying constitutional violation)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (municipalities responsible only for their own illegal acts)
Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Texas, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (two-step Monell analysis: constitutional violation plus municipal causation)