The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
091633np-pdf•Curtis Wood, Administrator for the Estate of Devon Lee Reid v. City of Lancaster
091633np-pdfCourt of Appeals for the Third CircuitNov 16, 2009
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-1633
CURTIS WOOD,
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF
DEVON LEE REID,
Appellant
v.
CITY OF LANCASTER; KURT MILLER, Lancaster City Police Officer;
DAVID HERSHEISER, Lancaster City Police Officer;
RICHARD MENDEZ, Lancaster City Police Officer;
JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, Unknown Lancaster City Police Officer(s);
DENNIS G. YOUNG, JR.; WARDEN VINCENT GUARINI;
CORRECTIONS OFFICER JAMES FLAHERTY; LANCASTER COUNTY;
TROY WALTZ; DARLENE CAULER, L.P.N. Medical Staff;
ELIZABETH HADDOX; MD STEPHEN POWERS; ROBERT DOE
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-03033)
Honorable Stewart Dalzell, District Judge
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 3, 2009
BEFORE: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 16, 2009)
-- 1 of 4 --
2
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
This matter comes on before this Court on appeal from orders granting motions to
dismiss and summary judgment dated December 19, 2007, and January 12 and 13, 2009,
and from a final judgment dated February 10, 2009, entered following a subsequent
nonjury trial. Curtis Wood, as administrator of the Estate of Devon Lee Reid, brought
these consolidated actions against the City of Lancaster against whom he subsequently
voluntarily dismissed the case, the County of Lancaster, and certain officers and
individuals associated with these entities. Ultimately, all the defendants remaining after
the dismissal of the City were completely successful on motions to dismiss and for
summary judgment except for corrections officer James Flaherty who prevailed at the
trial, and thus the District Court dismissed or rendered judgment against Reid on the
entire case.
The action arose in the aftermath of Reid’s arrest and incarceration in the
Lancaster County Prison following his altercation with Lancaster City police officers. As
a consequence of Reid’s bizarre behavior during confinement, the prison placed him on
medical observation and suicide status. Unfortunately, on September 17, 2004, while
Reid was in prison he suffered a pulmonary embolism, i.e., a blockage of his pulmonary
artery or one of its branches, causing his death. We are not aware of any basis in the
-- 2 of 4 --
3
record to conclude that by his voluntary action, i.e., a suicide, Reid brought about the
embolism.
Notwithstanding the circumstance that Reid died from natural causes his estate
brought this action against defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims in which he included claims under
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978), against the
County and Prison warden Vincent Guarini, and he also asserted supplemental state law
claims. The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343,
and 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Even though
Wood’s notice of appeal recites that he is appealing, inter alia, from the final judgment
entered after the nonjury trial on February 10, 2009, he does not challenge the outcome of
that trial but, instead, focuses his appeal on the pretrial dispositions. Thus, we are
exercising plenary review on this appeal. See Santos ex rel. Beato v. United States, 559
F.3d 189, 193 (3d Cir. 2009); Rodriguez v. Our Lady of Lourdes Med. Ctr., 552 F.3d 297,
302 (3d Cir. 2008).
We have reviewed the comprehensive opinion of the District Court dated January
13, 2009, and comprehensive explanatory order dated December 19, 2007, and are in
complete agreement with those dispositions and cannot add anything significant to them.
Accordingly, and taking into account the circumstance that Wood has not challenged the
February 10, 2009 judgment on this appeal, the orders of December 19, 2007, and January
-- 3 of 4 --
4
12 and 13, 2009, and the judgment of February 10, 2009, will be affirmed.
-- 4 of 4 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.