Fields v. United States

• Decision Date: 16 May 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Action 2:22-cv-00426
• Parties: MELISSA FIELDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia

1

MELISSA FIELDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-00426

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

May 16, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, CHIEF JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 10.) For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Deputy Michael King (“Deputy King”) is a Deputy Sheriff from Roane County, West Virginia, who also served as a Special Deputy on the C.U.F.F.E.D. Task Force of the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”). (ECF No. 4 at 3, ¶ 11; ECF No. 10 at 2, ¶ 5.) As this Court has previously recognized, Deputy King is no stranger to civil rights actions in both state and federal courts for negligence, excessive force, and a host of other claims. Fields v. King, 576 F.Supp.3d 392, 398 (S.D. W.Va. 2021). This particular civil action arises from the shooting death of Michael Nichols (“Nichols”) during an encounter with Deputy King on October 22, 2020. (ECF No. 1.)

In fact, this is the second civil action Plaintiff Melissa Fields-as the personal representative of the Estate of the Decedent-has filed regarding Nichols's death. In Fields v. King, Plaintiff asserted the following factual allegations:

On October 22, 2020, the Decedent was alone at his home in rural Roane County, West Virginia, where he resided by himself. The Decedent's closest neighbors, Jimmy and Selena Parsons, lived approximately 200 yards away from his home. Mrs. Parsons called Deputy King on his cell phone while he was off duty about the Decedent during the day of October 22, 2020. 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.

Although Deputy King subsequently called the 911 center Plaintiff alleges he did not provide the center with sufficient information about Mrs. Parsons' communication. 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. 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. Deputy King then proceeded to the Decedent's residence without formally marking-up on-duty and without obtaining a warrant. Upon information and belief Deputy King was not dressed in his uniform and was not wearing a body camera.

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. 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. 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.

576 F.Supp.3d at 397.

Plaintiff initially filed suit against Deputy King, Roane County Sheriff L. Todd Cole (“Sheriff Cole”), and the Roane County Commission on February 4, 2021. Id. She asserted claims against the Roane County Commission for (1) vicarious liability for Deputy King's actions, and (2) negligent training, supervision, investigation, discipline, and retention of Deputy King. Fields v. King, 2:21-cv-00090 (ECF No. 1 at 16-18, ¶¶ 75, 79, 80). The parties eventually reached a settlement, id. (ECF Nos. 92, 99), and Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case, id. (ECF No. 101).

Despite initially arguing that Deputy King was acting as a sheriff's deputy under the Roane County Commission, Plaintiff has since changed course and is now asserting that Deputy King was acting as a Special Deputy of the USMS at the time of Nichols's shooting.

On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the present action, (ECF No. 1), and on October 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging various claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) against the United States of America, (ECF No. 4). While the bulk of the factual allegations involving Nichols's shooting are identical to Plaintiff's previous lawsuit, Plaintiff now claims that Deputy King was working “full-time” for the USMS, went to Nichols's residence “in his USMS truck,” and was “wearing a vest and other gear provided by USMS.” (Id. at 3-4, ¶¶ 11, 15.) Based on these facts, Plaintiff asserts two familiar claims against the United States under the FTCA: (1) vicarious liability for Deputy King's negligence, (2) direct liability for negligent training, supervision, investigation, discipline, and retention of Deputy King.^[1] (Id. at 15-18.)

On December 30, 2022, Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed a response, (ECF No. 13), and Defendant filed a reply, (ECF No. 16). As such, this motion is fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 12(b)(1)

It is axiomatic that a court must find it has jurisdiction before determining the validity of any claims brought before it. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). A motion to dismiss an action under Rule 12(b)(1) raises the question of the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over the action. “The burden of showing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction rests on the plaintiff.” Adkins v. United States, 923 F.Supp.2d 853, 857 (S.D. W.Va. 2013) (citation omitted). “If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, then the claim must be dismissed.” Welch v. United States, 409 F.3d 646, 651 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Medina v. United States, 259 F.3d 220, 223 (4th Cir. 2001)).

“Challenges to jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may be raised in two distinct ways: ‘facial attacks' and ‘factual attacks.'” Adkins v. United States, 923 F.Supp.2d 853, 856 (S.D. W.Va. 2013) (quoting Thigpen v. United States, 800 F.2d 393, 401 n. 15 (4th Cir. 1986)). A “facial challenge” claims that the facts in the complaint are simply insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir.1982)). In such a case, “the plaintiff, in effect, is afforded the same procedural protection as he would receive under a Rule 12(b)(6) consideration.” Id. (quoting Adams, 697 F.2d at 1219). Thus, “the facts in the complaint are taken as true, and the motion must be denied if the complaint alleges sufficient facts to invoke subject matter jurisdiction.” Id.

If, on the other hand, the defendant makes a factual challenge and asserts the plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations are simply untrue, the plaintiff's allegations are given less procedural protection. Id. (citation omitted). In those cases, the court ordinarily does not apply the presumption of truthfulness, and the court may “decide disputed issues of fact with respect to subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. In doing so, the “court may then go beyond the allegations of the complaint and in an evidentiary hearing determine if there are facts to support the jurisdictional allegations, without converting the motion to a summary judgment proceeding.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted; italics in original).

Yet, a third situation exists when facial and factual challenges are indivisible because “the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the facts central to the merits of the dispute.” Id. at 193 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In those instances, a court should presume the truthfulness of the allegations. Id. Additionally, the court should provide “the plaintiff the procedural safeguards-such as discovery-that would apply were the plaintiff facing a direct attack on the merits.” Id.

In summary, the Fourth Circuit held that for facial challenges “the trial court must apply a standard patterned on Rule 12(b)(6) and assume the truthfulness of the facts alleged.” Id. For factual challenges, “the trial court may go beyond the complaint, conduct evidentiary proceedings, and resolve the disputed jurisdictional facts.” Id. For inextricably intertwined challenges, “the court should resolve the relevant factual disputes only after appropriate discovery, unless the jurisdictional allegations are clearly immaterial or wholly unsubstantial and frivolous.” Id. (citation omitted).

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted tests the legal sufficiency of a civil complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A plaintiff must allege sufficient facts, which, if proven, would entitle him to relief under a cognizable legal claim. Bell Atl. Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-55 (2007). A case should be dismissed if, viewing the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint does not contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. In applying this standard, a court must utilize a two-pronged approach. First, it must separate the legal conclusions in the complaint from the factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556...