Fobbs v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 05 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 3:21cv26 (DJN) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | CAMERON FOBBS, Plaintiff, v. ROMEL HUNT, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff Cameron Fobbs ("Plaintiff") brings this purported class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Major Romel Hunt ("Hunt") and Sergeant Branch ("Branch") (collectively, "Identified Defendants" or "Defendants"), as well as yet-unknown John Doe(s) Correctional Officers. Plaintiff alleges violations of the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. This matter now comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) filed by the Identified Defendants.
For the following reasons the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Identified Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10). Specifically, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion as to Count Two, but GRANTS Defendants' Motion as to Count One based on Plaintiff's concession that he has failed to state a claim. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Count One of the Complaint.
At this stage, the Court must accept as true the facts set forth in the Complaint (ECF No. 1). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Against this backdrop, the Court accepts the following facts as alleged for purposes of resolving the instant Motion.
Beginning in early 2020, the United States saw a widespread outbreak of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, which spread more quickly in settings where individuals lived in close proximity to each other, including jails and prisons. (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20, 22-23.) One of these facilities at a higher risk of suffering a severe outbreak of COVID-19 among its residents included the Richmond City Justice Center ("RCJC"), a jail located in Richmond, Virginia. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 21.) Plaintiff was a detainee at RCJC at all times relevant to this action and a resident of Pod 5G. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Pod 5G housed both pre-trial detainees as well as convicted inmates. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Defendant Hunt worked as a major with the Richmond City Sheriff's Department, and Defendant Branch worked as a sergeant with the Richmond City Sheriff's Department. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11.) Both Hunt and Branch were responsible for managing and overseeing correctional staff at RCJC. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11.)
Despite the known risks posed by COVID-19 to RCJC's residents, the Identified Defendants and all other employees of the Richmond City Sheriff's Office acted with deliberate indifference to these risks during the early months of the COVID-19 outbreak. (Compl. ¶¶ 22-25.) Specifically, the jail staff did not isolate or quarantine individuals who came into contact with suspected positive cases of the virus, allowed residents who displayed and complained of symptoms to remain among the general population, refused to enforce a mask-wearing policy among either the residents or the staff and declined to follow certain sanitation procedures, including disinfecting surfaces between uses. (Compl. ¶ 26.) This indifference and mismanagement resulted in several "large scale outbreaks" of COVID-19 at the jail, the largest of which occurred in August of 2020 when over 100 inmates tested positive for COVID-19. (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 27.)
In response to this outbreak, Richmond Sheriff Antoinette Irving ordered RCJC staff to separate RCJC residents into a "quarantine pod" of those who had tested positive and a "negative pod" of those who had tested negative. (Compl. ¶¶ 29-30.) However, RCJC staff made minimal effort to identify and isolate close contacts of residents who had tested positive and been placed in the quarantine pod, despite the staff's knowledge that individuals without a positive test result could still spread the virus. (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32.) Defendants did not allow residents to self-quarantine or re-test even after they developed symptoms following the initial round of testing. (Compl. ¶ 33.) RCJC also continued to transfer new residents onto Pod 5G from other pods, including previously quarantined individuals who had been allowed to terminate their quarantine early. (Compl. ¶ 34.)
Residents of Pod 5G grew increasingly concerned about RCJC's handling of this issue, so they informed the Identified Defendants and Defendants Doe(s) of their concerns. (Compl. ¶¶ 37-39.) However, despite numerous complaints by multiple residents, neither the Identified Defendants nor the John Doe Correctional Officers took any action. (Compl. ¶ 39.) A group of Pod 5G residents attempted to "escalate their concerns upward through the jail chain of command," speaking first to Defendant Branch, who managed the floor, and then to Branch's superior. (Compl. ¶ 41.) However, no one responded to the residents' concerns or provided any details regarding the jail's management of the COVID-19 outbreak. (Compl. ¶ 41.)
On the evening of August 29, 2020, all jail officers left Pod 5G and announced via the intercom system that the jail was entering a lockdown. (Compl. ¶ 42.) The lockdown required all residents to enter their cells so that their cells could be locked. (Compl. ¶ 42.) According to Plaintiff, "the majority of residents on Pod 5G complied with the lockdown order and returned to their cells as requested." (Compl. ¶ 43.) However, "a minority" — apparently six residents —remained outside of their cells in the Pod's public area, where they continued to communicate with the Identified Defendants and other John Doe Correctional Officers via the intercom system. (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 56.) Specifically, they "expressed that they were not satisfied with the lack of answers regarding COVID-19 and were remaining outside of their cells in order to attempt to achieve better communication with Defendants." (Compl. ¶ 43.)
Fifteen to thirty minutes passed after RCJC staff announced the lockdown order with no further action taken or orders given by the Identified Defendants or the other correctional officers. (Compl. ¶ 45.) "Eventually, correctional officers locked the cell doors so that those inside their cells could not leave and those outside of their cells could not enter their cells, even if they decided that they would comply with the lockdown order." (Compl. ¶ 46.) Correctional officers again used the intercom system to tell the residents to go into lockdown. (Compl. ¶ 47.) Because the initially noncompliant inmates could no longer enter their locked cells, Defendant Doe(s) ordered them to stand next to their cells instead. (Compl. ¶ 47.) The remaining residents complied with this order and went to stand next to their cells. (Compl. ¶ 48.)
At this point, no resident had threatened violence, put another inmate or officer in physical danger or otherwise refused to comply with the officers' follow-up orders. (Compl. ¶ 49.) However, "[d]uring the time that had passed since some Residents had initially refused to go into their cells, Defendants Branch, Hunt, and Doe(s) planned and prepared an assault on Pod 5G in retaliation for the noncompliance of some of the Residents." (Compl. ¶ 50.) Despite the compliant, "calm environment within the Pod," the Identified Defendants and John Doe Correctional Officers began rolling cannisters of tear gas into the Pod through the tray slots in the Pod's entrance doors, causing the entire Pod to fill with tear gas. (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 54-55.) The residents trapped inside their cells "immediately struggled to breathe." (Compl. ¶ 58.) Theyattempted to breathe by placing their mouths over their cells' air vents, but they quickly discovered that Defendants had turned off the ventilation system for the Pod so that no fresh air could flow through the vents and alleviate their pain. (Compl. ¶ 59.) The residents also attempted to soothe their burning skin by using water from the sinks in their cells, but the sinks had no water pressure. (Compl. ¶ 60.) (Compl. ¶ 61.)
The remaining six residents who had been standing outside of their cells rushed into the single open cell in an attempt to escape the gas. (Compl. ¶ 56.) Yet, as they entered, an officer walked up to the cell, sprayed them with pepper spray and locked them inside the cell. (Compl. ¶¶ 56-57.)
"After some time," officers began to remove the residents from the Pod one by one, a process that took thirty minutes. (Compl. ¶¶ 70-71.) The residents then stood out in RCJC's recreation yard for approximately an hour, vomiting, coughing severely and struggling to catch their breath. (Compl. ¶ 71.) The majority of the residents did not receive medical care, even those who suffered from pre-existing respiratory conditions. (Compl. ¶ 71.) After the residents returned to their cells, RCJC staff placed them on immediate lockdown, and many, including Plaintiff, had to wait four days to take a shower to remove the chemical irritants from their skin. (Compl. ¶ 72.) During the intervening days, the chemical irritants continued to burn the residents' skin and cause Plaintiff and many others to suffer extreme discomfort and psychological distress. (Compl. ¶ 72.)
According to Plaintiff, this tear gas assault did not constitute the normal protocol for responding to inmates who resisted going into lockdown — normally, RCJC staff would simplydetain the recalcitrant inmate, remove them to segregation and use pepper spray only if the inmate became physically resistant. (Compl. ¶ 44.) Additionally, RCJC maintains a Use of Force policy that governs the use of weapons such as tear gas, because this chemical has such dangerous effects including the possibility of death if subjected to long-lasting exposure in a closed setting. (Compl. ¶ 66.) This policy limits the use of Riot CS Smoke — the gas used here — "to situations where an imminent risk of physical harm is present, and specifically states that these agents will not be used 'indiscriminately to...
To continue reading
Request your trial