T.D. Perry v. Erie County
169 A.3d 1232
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- In January 2012 Thor D. Perry, an Erie County Prison inmate, was violently assaulted by other inmates; two corrections officers (Worcester and Palmer) were present and later convicted for their roles.
- Perry sued Erie County and Warden James Veshecco under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations based on County/Warden policies, practices, or customs that allegedly caused the assault.
- Perry identified six specific deficiencies: limits on who could terminate probationary officers, sergeants/corporals serving as officer-in-charge (OIC) on weekends, reliance on self-reporting conflicts, unauthorized access to unassigned areas, no means for inmates to identify the OIC on weekends, and chronic understaffing.
- After discovery, the County and Warden moved for summary judgment; the trial court found no genuine issue of material fact linking County/Warden policies or deliberate indifference to the assault and granted summary judgment.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding Perry failed to show: (1) a municipal policy or custom was the moving force behind the injury; (2) knowledge by the County/Warden that the policies created a substantial risk of harm; or (3) deliberate indifference by the Warden or County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monell municipal liability / causation (whether County/Warden policies were the moving force behind the assault) | Policies/practices (the six identified defects) collectively caused the assault and permit §1983 liability against County/Warden | No policy or custom identified that was the moving force; assault resulted from rogue actions of two officers, not official policy | Held for defendants: Perry failed to show a policy or custom was the proximate cause of his injury under Monell |
| Deliberate indifference (Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment standard) | County/Warden were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm by maintaining/implementing the challenged policies | No evidence County/Warden knew of and disregarded a substantial risk to inmate safety; Farmer subjective standard unmet | Held for defendants: plaintiff did not show officials were aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk |
| Specific policy challenges: termination, OIC designation, access rules, understaffing | These specific rules/practices allowed Worcester access and opportunity to orchestrate assault | Policies existed prohibiting unauthorized access and requiring reporting of conflicts; NIC review did not find those policies caused misconduct; no evidence a different OIC or termination would have prevented attack | Held for defendants: record lacked evidence linking these policies to the assault; NIC report did not corroborate plaintiff's causal theory |
| Appellate jurisdiction / finality (whether appeal is premature because claims remain against other defendants) | Perry perfected appeal after trial court later certified finality under Pa. R.A.P. 341(c) | Defendants argued appeal was premature and should be quashed because summary judgment did not dispose of all parties | Held for plaintiff (appeal not quashed): Pa. R.A.P. 905(a)(5) and trial court certification perfected jurisdiction; court reached merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under §1983 requires an official policy or custom as moving force)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness of substantial risk)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (Fourteenth Amendment liability requires more than negligence)
- Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (limits on respondeat superior liability under §1983)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (requirement to identify exact contours of underlying constitutional right)
- Wimer v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, 939 A.2d 843 (summary judgment standard on appeal)