2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-16-2009

Curtis Wood v. City of Lancaster

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-1633

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Curtis Wood v. City of Lancaster" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 253.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/253
NOT PRECEDENTIAL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)
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
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
4

12 and 13, 2009, and the judgment of February 10, 2009, will be affirmed.