Fields v. King

• Decision Date: 17 December 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-cv-00090
• Citation: 576 F.Supp.3d 392
• Parties: Melissa FIELDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Deputy Sheriff Michael KING, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia

576 F.Supp.3d 392

Melissa FIELDS, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Deputy Sheriff Michael KING, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-cv-00090

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division.

Signed December 17, 2021

Benjamin D. Adams, L. Dante DiTrapano, Calwell Luce Ditrapano, Benjamin B. Ware, R. Booth Goodwin, II, Stephanie Holbrook Daly, Goodwin & Goodwin, Charleston, WV, for Plaintiffs.

Drannon L. Adkins, Wendy E. Greve, Pullin Fowler Flanagan Brown & Poe, Charleston, WV, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, CHIEF JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Defendants Deputy Sheriff Michael King's, Sheriff L. Todd Cole's, and the Roane County Commission's Partial Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 13.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

This civil action arises from the shooting death of Michael Nichols ("Decedent") during an encounter with law enforcement on October 22, 2020. (ECF No. 1 at 4, ¶¶ 20–24.) Plaintiff, Melissa Fields—as the personal representative of the Estate of the Decedent—filed this action against Deputy Michael King ("Deputy King"), Roane County Sheriff L. Todd Cole ("Sheriff Cole"), and the Roane County Commission (the "Commission") (collectively "Defendants") on February 4, 2021. (ECF No. 1.)

The following factual allegations are taken from Plaintiff's Complaint. On October 22, 2020, the Decedent was alone at his home in rural Roane County, West Virginia, where he resided by himself. (Id. at 3, ¶ 9.) The Decedent's closest neighbors, Jimmy and Selena Parsons, lived approximately 200 yards away from his home. (Id. at 3, ¶ 10.) Mrs. Parsons called Deputy King on his cell phone while he was off duty about the Decedent during the day of October 22, 2020. (Id. at 3, ¶ 11.) The Parsons did not call 911 or the Sheriff's office to report any issues regarding the Decedent or otherwise, and instead spoke only privately with Deputy King on his cell phone. (Id. at 3, ¶ 12.)

Although Deputy King subsequently called the 911 center, Plaintiff alleges he did not provide the center with sufficient information about Mrs. Parsons’ communication. (Id. at 3, ¶ 13.) The 911 center was not given detail regarding the nature of Mrs. Parsons’ call regarding the Decedent, Deputy King's plans to respond to the situation, or any other information sufficient to inform the 911 center's workers as to the situation. (Id. ) Instead, Deputy King only asked if certain other officers were on duty, and—when told that those officers were not available—responded to the Decedent's residence alone by himself. (Id. at 3, ¶ 14.) Deputy King then proceeded to the Decedent's residence without formally marking-up on-duty and without obtaining a warrant.¹ (Id. at 4, ¶ 16.) Upon information and belief, Deputy King was not dressed in his uniform and was not wearing a body camera. (Id. at 6, ¶¶ 33–34.)

As Deputy King arrived, the Decedent—a slight, older man who was unarmed and did not own any firearms—was standing on his well-lit front porch. (Id. at 4, ¶ 19.) Plaintiff alleges that a large streetlight directly overhead would have made it easy for Deputy King to see that the Decedent presented no imposing threat, and certainly would not have been a threat to an armed deputy of Deputy King's physical stature. (Id. ) The Complaint does not allege what events transpired between the moment Deputy King arrived at the Decedent's residence and the moment the Decedent was killed. Nevertheless, Deputy King shot the decedent three times—once in the chest, once at a downward angle through his side into his pelvis, and once by placing his gun barrel against the Decedent's cheek and shooting him through the face downward into his chest cavity. (Id. at 4, ¶ 20.) Plaintiff contends this shooting occurred with "zero justification." (Id. ) Because Deputy King failed to provide sufficient detail regarding his whereabouts or the circumstances surrounding Mrs. Parsons’ call, the 911 center could not timely send medical attention to the scene. (Id. at 4, ¶ 22.)

Sheriff Cole and Deputy King have allegedly offered as justification for the shooting Deputy King's observation at the scene that the Decedent "moved toward a weapon" during the altercation. However, Plaintiff suggests there has been no explanation as to what was meant by that justification—such as what type of weapon was observed, where the weapon was located, and whether Deputy King had any reason to be concerned for his own safety. (Id. at 5, ¶ 24.) Plaintiff contends that Defendants have falsely suggested that the Decedent "moved toward a weapon" and may rely upon after-acquired evidence as improper justification for the shooting. (Id. at 5, ¶ 26.) Specifically, Plaintiff refers to "an old BB gun," which was purportedly wedged under the Decedent's porch railing—and affixed thereto as a railing spindle—as decoration. (Id. at 5, ¶ 27.) The BB gun had allegedly been positioned in this manner for quite some time, but was removed by Deputy King or other officers after the Decedent was killed. (Id. )

Plaintiff alleges that this incident was not Deputy King's first encounter with the Decedent's residence, as Deputy King had apparently made previous threats of violence toward the Decedent at his residence. (Id. at 6, ¶ 29.) Plaintiff alleges that, due to his previous experience at the Decedent's residence, Deputy King would have known that the BB gun was a non-threatening piece of decoration. (Id. ) Moreover, Plaintiff contends that the Decedent never would have moved toward a BB gun to defend himself against Deputy King, in light of Deputy King's "well-known history of using excessive force throughout Roane County, ... as well as [his] prior direct threats to" the Decedent. (Id. at 6, ¶ 30.)

Plaintiff alleges that Deputy King has routinely shown an utter disregard for proper police procedures during his 15-year employment as a deputy in Roane County and has, on multiple occasions, used excessive and unnecessary force. (Id. at 7, ¶ 37.) According to the Complaint, Deputy King "rarely wears a uniform, and instead patrols Roane County in jeans and a t-shirt or other casual clothes," and "with the direct knowledge of [Sheriff] Cole and [the Commission], habitually escalates routine, minor situations into physical altercations, threatens use of deadly force, and on at least two prior occasions ..., unjustifiably and improperly used deadly force." (Id. at 6–7, ¶¶ 34–35.)

During Deputy King's 15-year tenure as a Sheriff's deputy, Sheriff Cole held the office of Sheriff of Roane County from 2001 to 2009 and again starting in 2014 through the present. (Id. at 7–8, ¶ 38.) During Sheriff Cole's time in office, he has allegedly received a host of complaints about Deputy King's dangerous behavior, recurrent failure to follow protocols, and frequent use of excessive force. (Id. ) Likewise, the Commission, as employer of both Sheriff Cole and Deputy King, received many of these complaints and allegedly had actual knowledge of Deputy King's misconduct and Sheriff Cole's failure to address it. (Id. at 8, ¶ 39.)

Plaintiff offers several incidents involving Deputy King wherein he allegedly used excessive and unnecessary force, including two federal lawsuits relating to his use of excessive force, each of which Sheriff Cole allegedly failed to adequately investigate and address. (Id. at 8–14, ¶¶ 40–69.) Those incidents include the following: (1) a complaint made by a man in the fall of 2018 advising Sheriff Cole that Deputy King had unnecessarily pulled his weapon while apprehending the man's son, (Id. at 8–9, ¶¶ 42–43); (2) a complaint relating to an incident occurring on April 10, 2013, when Deputy King pulled over a school bus and detained a minor child, without charge, because the minor's hat had flown out of the school bus window, (Id. at 9–10, ¶¶ 45–52); (3) a formal complaint against Deputy King made by a woman who called 911 to report that Deputy King was—for no lawful purpose—commanding her to leave the premises of Walton Middle School where her child was attending a dance, while he had his hand on his gun, (Id. at 10–11, ¶¶ 53–58); (4) an incident where a Roane County citizen was severely beaten in his yard and charged with a crime after making a complaint to the Commission to share his views that Deputy King should not be re-hired by the Commission, (Id. at 12, ¶¶ 60–62); (5) a federal lawsuit alleging that Deputy King forcibly entered a man's home to beat, stomp, kick and punch the man while he lay prone on the ground, (Id. at 12–13, ¶ 64), see also Brad E. Proctor v. Roane Cty. Comm'n, et al. , Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00432 (S.D. W. Va.); and (6) a second federal lawsuit alleging that Deputy King responded to a harmless 911 call about a man spinning his truck tires on his own property and shot the man in the face with a 12-gauge shotgun while the man was lying on his back on his own property, (Id. at 13, ¶ 65), see also Travis Rhodes, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Timothy E. Rhodes v. Deputy Sheriff Michael King, and the Roane Cty. Comm'n , Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00626 (S.D. W. Va.).

Plaintiff initiated the instant action on February 4, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants filed their Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on April 26, 2021. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff filed her Response to Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss on May 10, 2021. (ECF No. 15.) Defendants timely filed their Reply in Support of Partial Motion to Dismiss on May 17, 2021. (ECF No. 19.) Accordingly, Defendants’ motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for adjudication.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A pleading must include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ; see McCleary-Evans v. Md. Dep't of Transp., State Highway Admin. , 780 F.3d 582, 585 (4th Cir. 2015) (stating that this requirement exists "to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the...