Estate of Johnson v. Weber, 27792

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Citation898 N.W.2d 718
Docket Number27792
Parties ESTATE OF Ronald E. JOHNSON, BY AND THROUGH its Personal Representative, Lynette K. JOHNSON, and Lynette K. Johnson, Individually, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Douglas WEBER, Troy Ponto, Darin Young, Crystal Van Vooren, Denny Kaemingk, Laurie Feiler, Timothy A. Reisch, South Dakota Department of Corrections, State of South Dakota, and John Does 1–20, Defendants and Appellees.
Decision Date14 June 2017

DONALD M. McCARTY of Helsper, McCarty & Rasmussen, PC, Brookings, South Dakota and JOHN W. BURKE of Thomas, Braun, Bernard & Burke, LLP, Rapid City, South Dakota, Attorneys for appellants.

JAMES E. MOORE, JAMES A. POWER of Woods Fuller Shultz & Smith P.C., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for appellees.

KERN, Justice

[¶1.] Lynette Johnson, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Ronald E. Johnson (collectively Johnson), appeals from an order granting summary judgment. Ronald E. Johnson (Ronald) was a South Dakota State Penitentiary correctional officer murdered by two inmates during an escape attempt. Johnson sued the Department of Corrections (DOC) and a number of its employees in state court. Count 3 of Johnson's complaint alleged a constitutional claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for a violation of substantive due process rights under the state and federal constitutions. DOC removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. The federal court granted summary judgment and remanded the remaining claims back to state court. Johnson appealed and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal district court's order granting summary judgment.

[¶2.] After the case returned to state court, DOC moved for summary judgment on Johnson's remaining claims, which the circuit court granted. Johnson appeals the dismissal of three of those claims: intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, and a due process violation under the state constitution. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶3.] The facts of this case are tragic. Ronald E. Johnson worked as a correctional officer for DOC at the South Dakota State Penitentiary (SDSP) for twenty-four years in a variety of capacities. Before his untimely death, Ronald was part of the "Early Rec Crew." His duties included running daily recreational periods; transporting inmates to various appointments and facilities; working in the dining hall; administering urinalyses, breathalyzers, pat downs, and strip searches; and completing various other duties. Ronald worked in all areas of the prison, taking on roles of absent employees.

[¶4.] On April 12, 2011, Ronald was assigned to one of the Prison Industries buildings, where inmates work, attend school, or participate in programming. His duties included patrolling the hallways and common areas and monitoring inmate traffic. At approximately 10:45 a.m., a food truck arrived at the prison's West Gate. After permitting the truck to enter, guards discovered inmate Eric Robert (Robert) dressed in a correctional officer's uniform pushing a handcart loaded with a large box toward the gate. Inmate Rodney Berget (Berget) was hiding inside the box. The inmates made a violent and unsuccessful attempt to flee from prison staff and were apprehended. Robert's disguise prompted a search for the staff member to whom the uniform belonged. Ronald was found in the Prison Industries building stripped of his uniform, severely beaten, and unresponsive. He was rushed to Sanford Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 11:50 a.m. Robert and Berget were later charged and convicted of murder in the first degree, and both received the death penalty. Robert was executed on October 15, 2012, and Berget remains incarcerated on death row.

[¶5.] After the murder, DOC conducted an investigation and subsequently prepared a 28–page report dated May 9, 2011, entitled "SD Department of Corrections After–Incident Report" (Incident Report). The Incident Report, which was published on DOC's website, detailed the circumstances of Ronald's death and DOC's evaluation and implementation of changes necessary to prevent future occurrences of violent escape. The Incident Report was revised numerous times by staff within DOC and by the Governor's Office. DOC was under no obligation to prepare the Incident Report. The report, which included overall recommendations to improve security at the facility, concluded that DOC staff correctly followed all policies and procedures.

[¶6.] In Johnson's view, the Incident Report left out critical details regarding the events that led up to Ronald's murder. Both Robert and Berget had extensive criminal histories, including crimes of violence, and they were classified as maximum-security inmates. Berget had been convicted of multiple offenses, including grand theft, burglary, escape, and kidnapping, and was serving a life sentence for attempted first-degree murder. Robert was serving an 80–year term in prison for kidnapping. Robert had pulled a woman over on the road while impersonating a law enforcement officer before forcing her into the trunk of her car. Johnson also observes that the Incident Report makes no mention of the fact that DOC relocated both Robert and Berget from maximum-security cells in Jameson Annex to West Hall, a high-medium-custody housing unit at the SDSP in June 2004 and 2009, respectively.1 West Hall inmates are supervised by security rounds and cell checks. By contrast, inmates housed in Jameson Annex are subject to direct correctional supervision during movement and use of facilities.2

[¶7.] Johnson further argues that the Incident Report intentionally omitted facts demonstrating that this placement violated DOC classification policy in several respects. Specifically, Johnson argues that the Incident Report failed to disclose DOC's prior knowledge of Robert and Berget's plans, albeit made years earlier, to kill DOC staff and escape; that DOC staff had expressed concerns about Robert and Berget's classification; that certain forms allowing Berget to be housed at West Hall lacked necessary signatures and were incomplete; and that DOC officials allegedly violated DOC policy by lowering Robert and Berget's housing classifications to end their use of hunger strikes. Johnson claims that the omission of these and other facts—facts which Johnson contends demonstrate DOC's facilitation of Ronald's death—was self-serving and designed to cover up DOC's alleged responsibility for Ronald's death.

[¶8.] Based on these and other claims, Johnson sued DOC in state court on April 27, 2012, alleging (Count 1) wrongful death; (Count 2) a survival action; (Count 3) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim; (Count 4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); (Count 5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (Count 6) fraudulent misrepresentation. With reference to Count 3, Johnson asserted claims under both the state and federal constitutions. Specifically, Johnson alleged that DOC's conduct affirmatively created the danger that led to Ronald's death in violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs also alleged a violation of Ronald's due process rights contained in article VI, § 2 of the South Dakota Constitution. Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of Johnson's § 1983 claim. A brief summary of the federal litigation resolving this claim provides useful context for our decision.

[¶9.] The United States District Court of South Dakota granted summary judgment in favor of DOC on Johnson's § 1983 claim on the grounds of qualified immunity. Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune from suit and shielded from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly-established statutory or constitutional right known to a reasonable person. Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed. 2d 396, 410 (1982). In its memorandum decision, the federal district court offered an extensive overview of the facts leading to Ronald's death. The court observed that both Robert and Berget were maximum-custody inmates and that DOC policy required they be housed in Jameson Annex barring a discretionary administrative decision specifying alternative housing. The court detailed the criminal histories of both men as well as their past escape attempts, including Berget's successful escape in 1984. The court noted that Robert had been disciplined as recently as 2007 for an escape attempt, while Berget's last documented attempt was made in 2003. The court additionally noted that a search of Berget's cell in August 2010 led to the discovery of razor blades and drill bits. Neither inmate, however, had a history of institutional violence.

[¶10.] The court observed that DOC was aware of these facts when it transferred Robert and Berget to West Hall; additionally, it recognized that DOC failed to complete the process and necessary paperwork for authorization of such a transfer. Nevertheless, the court found that qualified immunity applied with respect to Johnson's § 1983 claim. The court observed that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "protects individual liberty against certain government actions." However, the court recognized that the State is under no obligation to "protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors." DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. , 489 U.S. 189, 195, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1003, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989). The court thus concluded that "state actors are liable under the Due Process Clause only for their own acts and not for the violent acts of third parties [.]" The court noted, however, that the Eighth Circuit recognizes two exceptions to this rule. The State may be liable if the person harmed is in the State's custody, or when the State creates the risk that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Healy v. Fox
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota
    • November 19, 2021
    ...have held, newly-discovered evidence does not provide an exception to res judicata." Est. of Johnson by & through Johnson v. Weber, 898 N.W.2d 718, 733 (S.D. 2017) (cleaned up and citations omitted) (collecting and listing cases). Therefore, Defendants have met the final element of res judi......
  • Kraft v. Office of Comptroller of Currency
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota
    • April 5, 2021
    ...relied on the representation; and (6) the plaintiff suffered damage as a result. Est. of Johnson by & through Johnson v. Weber, 898 N.W.2d 718, 729 (S.D. 2017). This claim fails for the same reason that a claim for promissory estoppel fails. Kraft did not rely on or suffer damages as a resu......
  • Richardson v. Richardson, 27754
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 27, 2017
    ...as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Estate of Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Weber , 2017 S.D. 36, ¶ 17, 898 N.W.2d 718, 726. Thus, a spouse seeking to retain the full scope of his or her rights must endure unendurable conduct. "Although the preservation of marital ......
  • S.D. Wheat Growers Ass'n v. Chief Indus., Inc., 1:14-CV-01008-CBK
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota
    • August 28, 2018
    ...justifiably suffers damage from as a result of reasonable reliance. See, e.g. , Estate of Johnson by and through Johnson v. Weber, 898 N.W.2d 718, 729 (S.D. 2017). To toll a limitations period for fraudulent misrepresentation, then, alike fraudulent concealment,false representations ... mus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT