Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03414/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03414-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-3414

___________

ANDREW MATTERN;

AMANDA MATTERN,

 Appellants

v.

CITY OF SEA ISLE; POWELL BIRCHMEIER & POWELL; JAMES R. 

BIRCHMEIER, ESQ.; LIEUTENANT ANTHONY GARREFFI; PATROLMAN 

NICHOLAS GIORDANO; DETECTIVE BRIAN HAMILTON; PATROLMAN 

SHAWN LESNIEWSKI; DETECTIVE SERGEANT WILLIAM MAMMELE; 

LIEUTENANT THOMAS MCQUILLEN; JOHN DOES 1-10; ABC, INC, 1-10

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 1-14-cv-07231)

District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle

____________________________________

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 12, 2016

Before: AMBRO, SMITH, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 24, 2016)

OPINION*

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 

does not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-3414 Document: 003112389084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2016
2

KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.

Andrew and Amanda Mattern appeal the District Court’s dismissal of their 

Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

against the City of Sea Isle, New Jersey, and several officers with the City of Sea Isle 

Police Department. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. 

I. Background1

Appellant Andrew Mattern was hired by the City of Sea Isle to help clean up 

debris that accumulated along the city’s promenade following Hurricane Sandy. While 

driving a large truck in reverse along the promenade at about one or two miles per hour, 

Mr. Mattern accidentally struck a pedestrian, Bernice Pasquarello, who had emerged onto 

the promenade from a nearby path. She was pronounced dead at the scene. Ms. 

Pasquarello was unable to see the reversing truck as a result of large bushes flanking each 

side of the access point, which likewise prevented Mr. Mattern from seeing Ms. 

Pasquarello. Moreover, Ms. Pasquarello was unable to hear the truck over the

combination of her earmuffs and the twenty-five mile per hour wind gusts coming off the 

shore at that time. A post-accident investigation also revealed that the reverse beeper on 

Mr. Mattern’s truck was not working on the day of the accident. 

 

1 Because we write primarily for the parties, we will recite only as much of the 

factual and procedural history of this case as is helpful to our discussion. Because this 

case is an appeal from dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), we accept the allegations 

in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most 

favorable to the Matterns, the non-moving parties. See Sturm v. Clark, 835 F.2d 1009, 

1011 (3d Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the following facts are taken from the Matterns’ 

Amended Complaint and its supporting documents.

Case: 15-3414 Document: 003112389084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2016
3

After the accident, several police officers from the City of Sea Isle arrived on the 

scene. The first, Patrolman Nicholas Giordano, observed that while it appeared Mr. 

Mattern was “not impaired,” he was “visibly emotional and shaken up about what 

occurred.” J.A. 112, 168. Officer Giordano directed Mr. Mattern to wait on a bench 

about twenty-five feet from Ms. Pasquarello’s body until another officer, Detective 

Sergeant William Mammele, arrived. 

Upon arrival, Detective Sergeant Mammele similarly observed that Mr. Mattern 

was “visibly shaken and very upset” and noted that when he asked Mr. Mattern if he was 

“okay,” Mr. Mattern responded, “No, I just killed someone.” J.A. 113, 170. Mammele 

asked Mr. Mattern to “tell him what happened,” and Mr. Mattern recounted the accident’s 

events in detail. J.A. 170. In his report, Mammele noted that he detected “no sign of 

physical impairment nor any odor of alcoholic beverage.” J.A. 170.

While the police secured the scene, Mr. Mattern was placed in a police car by 

Lieutenant Anthony Garreffi. Eventually, Mr. Mattern was joined by Amanda Mattern,

his wife, and Officer Giordano drove the two to a makeshift police station for 

investigation. Officer Giordano sat with Mr. Mattern for about an hour in silence until 

the arrival of Lieutenant Thomas McQuillen, who noticed that Mr. Mattern was “visibly 

upset and appeared to have been crying.” J.A. 176.

While waiting for other investigators to arrive, Lieutenant McQuillen and the 

Matterns “ma[d]e small talk.” J.A. 177. During that time, Mr. Mattern stated repeatedly 

that he “was just driving the truck” and “had no idea where [Ms. Pasquarello] came 

Case: 15-3414 Document: 003112389084 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2016
4

from.” J.A. 115. After several hours at the makeshift station, the Matterns retained an 

attorney who instructed them to leave. Before the Matterns left, however, Deacon Joseph 

Murphy, a minister who was at the station to speak with police officers and assess their 

need for “grief counseling,” asked whether “he was needed to speak to Mr. Mattern,” but 

“this request was rejected by the police off-hand, and Deacon Murphy was transported to 

the Pasquarello’s residence.” J.A. 118.

The Matterns allege that, as a result of the accident and the “delay in medical 

attention,” Mr. Mattern “suffers from post traumatic stress disorder” for which he 

“receives regular therapy” and that his “mental trauma will be explained in detail by [an] 

expert medical witness.” J.A. 102-03, 116-17. The Matterns further allege that Mr. 

Mattern was in “a state of mind which was visibly abnormal to everyone he encountered” 

and that he was “suffering from a mental trauma for which he was actively denied 

assistance.” J.A. 114. 

Following these events, the Matterns brought an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against Garreffi, Giordano, Mammele, and McQuillen (collectively, the “Named 

Officers”) and a Monell claim2against the City of Sea Isle claiming violations of Mr. 

Mattern’s Fourteenth Amendment rights.3 The District Court dismissed both claims set 

 

2 Section 1983 permits claims against a municipality that has adopted a policy, 

custom, or practice that caused a violation of a claimant’s constitutional rights. Monell v. 

Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).

3 The Matterns agree that where, as here, medical attention is denied to a person 

during pre-incarceration detainment, it is the Fourteenth Amendment that is implicated. 

However, the Matterns’ brief also references the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. As a 

Case: 15-3414 Document: 003112389084 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/24/2016
5

out in the Matterns’ Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), 

and this appeal followed. 

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

We have jurisdiction over appeals from all final decisions of the district courts 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Merle v. United States, 351 F.3d 92, 94 (3d Cir. 2003). Rule

12(b)(6) instructs that a complaint must be dismissed if, after accepting as true all of the 

well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the 

plaintiff’s favor, the complaint fails to show that the plaintiff has a plausible claim for 

relief. See, e.g., Hansler v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Network, 798 F.3d 149, 152 n.2 (3d Cir. 

2015). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” a proper 

articulation of the plaintiff’s grounds for relief “requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). We will affirm only if no relief 

 

preliminary matter, we note that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated by denial of 

medical care claims. See Natale v. Camden Cty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 581 (3d 

Cir. 2003) (discussing the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in the context of a denial 

of medical care claim). Moreover, as the District Court noted, Mr. Mattern’s Eighth 

Amendment rights are not implicated because Mr. Mattern was not a convicted prisoner 

at the time of the conduct at issue in this case. Id. (noting the Eighth Amendment applies 

only “after [the State] has secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with due 

process of law” (alteration in original) (quoting City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 

U.S. 239, 244 (1983))). For these reasons, the following discussion relates only to Mr. 

Mattern’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

Case: 15-3414 Document: 003112389084 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/24/2016
6

could be granted under any set of facts the plaintiff could prove. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 

F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir. 2005).

III. Discussion

The Matterns argue on appeal that the Named Officers violated Mr. Mattern’s 

Fourteenth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by denying him medical 

attention for his psychological trauma in the aftermath of the accident. The Matterns 

further argue that the City of Sea Isle is liable pursuant to Monell for this constitutional 

violation because it failed to properly train its officers and first responders to provide 

psychological medical attention to those that cause such accidents. We address each 

claim in turn.

A. § 1983 Claims Against the Named Officers 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Matterns must show: “(1) that the 

conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 

(2) that the conduct deprived [Mr. Mattern] of rights, privileges, or immunities secured 

by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Schneyder v. Smith, 653 F.3d 313, 319 

(3d Cir. 2011).4 “The first step in evaluating a § 1983 claim is to ‘identify the exact 

contours of the underlying right said to have been violated’ and to determine ‘whether the 

plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right at all.’” Nicini v. Morra, 212 

 

4 The Named Officers do not dispute that they were acting under color of state 

law, nor would the law support such an argument. See, e.g., Black v. Stephens, 662 F.2d 

181, 188 (3d Cir. 1981). Therefore, the only question on appeal is whether the Named 

Officers violated Mr. Mattern’s constitutional rights. 

Case: 15-3414 Document: 003112389084 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/24/2016
7

F.3d 798, 806 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 841 n.5 

(1998)). 

In this case, the particular right at issue is Mr. Mattern’s right to medical care for 

psychological and emotional trauma. In assessing a pretrial detainee’s claim that he was 

denied medical care, the relevant inquiry is whether the alleged denial was “imposed for 

the purpose of punishment or whether it [was] but an incident of some other legitimate 

governmental purpose.” Hubbard v. Taylor, 399 F.3d 150, 158 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting 

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538 (1979)). For a denial of medical care to constitute a 

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Matterns must demonstrate: “(i) a serious 

medical need, and (ii) acts or omissions by [the Named Officers] that indicate deliberate 

indifference to that need.” Natale v. Camden Cty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 582 (3d 

Cir. 2003) (citing Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999)).5 Notwithstanding 

our sympathy for all affected by this tragic accident, we agree with the District Court that 

 

5 While the Eighth Amendment itself “has no application” until there has been a 

“formal adjudication of guilt,” City of Revere, 463 U.S. at 244, we evaluate these claims 

“under the standard used to evaluate similar claims brought under the Eighth 

Amendment,” Natale, 318 F.3d at 582; see also City of Revere, 463 U.S. at 244 (stating 

that the Fourteenth Amendment provides pretrial detainees with protections “at least as 

great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner”). There is 

an open question of “how much more protection unconvicted prisoners should receive” 

under the Fourteenth Amendment. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 188 n.10 (3d Cir. 

1993). Because the Matterns have not raised this issue on appeal, “we do not decide 

whether the Due Process Clause provides additional protections to pretrial detainees 

beyond those provided by the Eighth Amendment to convicted prisoners.” Natale, 318 

F.3d at 581 n.5.

Case: 15-3414 Document: 003112389084 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/24/2016
8

the facts as alleged in the Matterns’ Complaint fail to establish either prong required for a 

Fourteenth Amendment denial of medical care claim.

1. Serious Medical Need

First, and with regard to prong one, a medical need is “serious” for purposes of a 

denial of medical care claim if it is either “one that has been diagnosed by a physician as 

requiring treatment or one that is so obvious that a lay person would easily recognize the 

necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Monmouth Cty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 

F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987) (quoting Pace v. Fauver, 479 F. Supp. 456, 458 (D.N.J. 

1979), aff’d, 649 F.2d 960 (3d Cir. 1981)).

6

 

As the District Court noted, the Complaint does not explicitly allege that Mr. 

Mattern was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) by a medical 

professional. It does allege, however, that Mr. Mattern “suffers from post traumatic 

stress disorder” for which he “receives regular therapy” and that his “mental trauma will 

be explained in detail by [the Matterns’] expert medical witness.” J.A. 102-03, 117. 

Viewed in a light most favorable to the Matterns and drawing all reasonable inferences 

therefrom, these allegations raise a reasonable inference that Mr. Mattern has been

diagnosed with PTSD.

 

6 We emphasize that a “serious medical need may exist for psychological or 

psychiatric treatment, just as it may exist for physical ills.” Barkes v. First Corr. Med., 

Inc., 766 F.3d 307, 328 n.13 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Partridge v. Two Unknown Police 

Officers, 791 F.2d 1182, 1187 (5th Cir. 1986)), rev’d on other grounds, Taylor v. Barkes, 

135 S. Ct. 2042 (2015).

Case: 15-3414 Document: 003112389084 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/24/2016
9

However, “[t]he ability to satisfy [this] prong with a showing that the injury was 

diagnosed by a physician who mandated treatment necessarily contemplates the diagnosis 

being made before the defendant’s alleged deliberate indifference.” Burgess v. Fischer, 

735 F.3d 462, 477 (6th Cir. 2013).

7

 For this reason, the post hoc diagnosis described in 

the Complaint is insufficient to establish that Mr. Mattern had a serious medical need that 

could form the basis of a Fourteenth Amendment denial of medical care claim.

Nor do the facts as alleged in the Complaint establish the second type of serious 

medical need—one that is “so obvious that a lay person would easily recognize the 

necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 347. A conclusion that certain 

facts would not make a serious medical need obvious to a lay person is not a conclusion 

that no such need exists; “[h]eart disease and HIV, unlike, for example, broken legs or 

bullet wounds, do not clearly manifest themselves in ways that are obvious and 

ascertainable to a lay person.” Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 494 (3d Cir. 

2002). In this case, although Mr. Mattern’s being “visibly shaken” and “emotional,” 

“crying,” and responding “no” when an officer asked if he was “okay” would indicate to 

a lay person that he was distraught as a result of the accident, J.A. 170, 176, these facts

do not demonstrate a medical need “so obvious” that a lay person would “easily 

recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention,” Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 347. Mr. 

 

7 As the Sixth Circuit noted, “if a post hoc diagnosis of the . . . injuries would 

suffice” to establish a serious medical need, there would be “no need” for the second 

method of establishing such a need, i.e., demonstrating that “an injury was obvious to a 

lay person.” Burger, 735 F.3d at 477.

Case: 15-3414 Document: 003112389084 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/24/2016
10

Mattern’s ability to make “small talk” with Detective Sergeant Mammele and recount the 

accident in detail further supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Grayson v. Ross, 454 F.3d 

802, 809 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding a medical need resulting from substance abuse was 

not obvious where the claimant “became combative” while being arrested but 

subsequently sat “calmly in the back of the patrol car, followed directions, answered 

questions posed, and remained quiet and seated on a bench inside the jail”). 

The Matterns argue that Deacon Murphy’s presence for the purpose of providing 

grief counseling to officers who observed the deadly accident demonstrates that police 

realize that individuals involved in such accidents require medical attention and thus the 

need is obvious. We cannot agree. Whatever support a general policy of having a doctor 

available might lend to a plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate an obvious medical need in his 

specific case, there was no such policy here. While Deacon Murphy’s presence may 

indicate that the police understand the value of a spiritual counselor in the aftermath of an 

accident, it does not reflect an understanding of the “necessity for a doctor’s attention” 

after such accidents, and thus this argument is also insufficient to show that Mr. Mattern 

had an “obvious” need for medical attention. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 347 (emphasis 

added).

2. Deliberate Indifference

Even assuming that the facts alleged in the Complaint did show that Mr. Mattern 

was suffering from a “serious medical need,” the Matterns could not satisfy the second 

requirement of their claim—that the Named Officers acted with “deliberate indifference.” 

Case: 15-3414 Document: 003112389084 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/24/2016
11

Natale, 318 F.3d at 582. For claims evaluated pursuant to Eighth Amendment standards, 

deliberate indifference is a “subjective standard of liability” and thus a defendant cannot 

be held liable unless he or she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to [a 

complainant’s] health or safety.” Id. (quoting Nicini, 212 F.3d at 811; then quoting

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). We have explained that deliberate 

indifference is “evident” in certain circumstances, including: (i) the denial of reasonable 

requests for medical treatment that expose the complainant to undue suffering; (ii) 

knowledge of the need for medical care and the intentional refusal to provide such care; 

or (iii) the delay of necessary medical treatment for non-medical reasons. See Lanzaro,

834 F.2d at 346-47.

The Matterns invoke the second category of deliberate indifference under 

Lanzaro: They argue that Mr. Mattern’s statement that he was “not ok,” together with the

various officers’ observations of Mr. Mattern, “illustrates that the officials were told there 

was a need for medical attention and refused to acknowledge” it. Appellants’ Br. 24. As 

noted above, however, the Complaint and its supporting documents reflect merely that 

the Named Officers noticed that Mr. Mattern was distraught, and, moreover, that they 

were able to converse with him and believed he was not impaired. These observations

simply do not demonstrate knowledge of a need for medical care. See Natale, 318 F.3d 

at 582. Thus, even viewed in the light most favorable to the Matterns, the allegations in 

the Complaint do not rise to the “stringent standard” of deliberate indifference. Bd. of 

Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 410 (1997). 

Case: 15-3414 Document: 003112389084 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/24/2016
12

B. § 1983 Claims Against the City of Sea Isle

Because, as explained above, we conclude that the Matterns have not sufficiently 

pleaded a Fourteenth Amendment denial of medical care claim, the Matterns’ Monell

claim against the City of Sea Isle must also fail. City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 

796, 799 (1986) (stating if a municipal employee “inflicted no constitutional injury . . . it 

is inconceivable that [the municipality] could be liable”). Accordingly, we will affirm 

the District Court’s dismissal of this claim. 

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court. 

Case: 15-3414 Document: 003112389084 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/24/2016