Goodmon v. Rockefeller, s. 90-7027
| Decision Date | 29 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 90-7027,90-7303,s. 90-7027 |
| Citation | 947 F.2d 1186 |
| Parties | Rountree Riley GOODMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John D. ROCKEFELLER, IV, Governor; W. Joseph McCoy, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections; Richard G. Mohn, Superintendent of the West Virginia State Penitentiary; Donald E. Bordenkircher, Superintendent of the West Virginia State Penitentiary; Edwin Myers, Assistant Superintendent of the West Virginia State Penitentiary; B.C. Cluter, Deputy Warden of Security, West Virginia State Penitentiary; William Duncil, Deputy Warden of the West Virginia State Penitentiary; J. Dave Fromhart, Deputy Warden of the West Virginia State Penitentiary; Norman Woods, Dr., West Virginia State Penitentiary, all sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees. George T. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John D. ROCKEFELLER, IV, Governor; Joseph McCoy, Commissioner; Don E. Bordenkircher, Superintendent; Adult Parole Board, Individually and in their official capacity, Defendants- Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Robert Molton Bastress, Jr., Morgantown, W. Va., argued, for plaintiffs-appellants.
James Alexander Swart, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, W. Va., argued, for defendants-appellees.
Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, Senior District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
Rountree Riley Goodmon and George T. Johnson, inmates at the West Virginia Penitentiary at Moundsville, West Virginia, have, in separate complaints, sued the Governor of West Virginia, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, and various prison officials, both in their official capacities and in their individual capacities, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). They demand money damages and seek declaratory and injunctive relief in connection with the conditions of the penitentiary and their confinement. The state courts in West Virginia have already found that confinement at the penitentiary subjects the inmates to punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and have ordered the construction of a new prison, which will be completed in 1992. See Crain v. Bordenkircher, --- W.Va. ----, 392 S.E.2d 227 (1990) (). Relying on Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), in which the Supreme Court held that "neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are 'persons' under § 1983" and therefore cannot be sued under § 1983, id. at 71, 109 S.Ct. at 2311, the district court dismissed both complaints. The holding in Will, however, does not support dismissal of claims against public officials for money damages, who are sued in their individual capacities. Because the decision of the district court failed to address the claims made against the individuals in their individual capacities, we reverse and remand for further consideration of those claims. In all other respects, we affirm.
Goodmon's complaint lists in some detail his grievances about the conditions in the penitentiary at Moundsville. The list is long, consisting of some five pages, and it covers virtually all aspects of prison life and facilities. The allegations describe gross inadequacies in construction (for example, the size of cells) and equipment (for example, the ventilation). Goodmon also condemns the operation and management. For instance, he alleges that inmates were deprived of adequate food and medical care, that they were not allowed to participate in religious services, that they were denied access to legal materials, and that prison cells were overrun with raw sewage and infested with vermin. Johnson's complaint makes similar allegations. Both Goodmon and Johnson sue the defendants in their official capacities and in their individual capacities. J.A. 18-19 (Goodmon complaint); J.A. 89 (Johnson complaint).
In its opinion and order dismissing the complaints, the district court focused on the claims against the officials in their official capacities. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orange v. Fielding, C.A. No. 0:06-2601-PMD-BM.
...58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 112 S.Ct. 358, 365, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991); Goodmon v. Rockefeller, 947 F.2d 1186 (4th Cir.1991); Inmates v. Owens, 561 F.2d 560 (4th Cir.1977). However, in order to pursue a claim against this Defendant, Plaintiff m......
-
Ham v. Parker
...rights. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Hafer v. Melo, 112 S.Ct. 358, 365 (1991); Goodmon v. Rockefeller, 947 F.2d 1186 (4th Cir. 1991); Inmates v. Owens, 561 F.2d 560 (4th Cir. 1977). In her brief, Plaintiff explains this cause of action by stating that her ......
-
Thomas v. McGinnis
...McGinnis was sued in his individual capacity; thus, he is not protected by the holding of Will and Smith. See Goodmon v. Rockefeller, 947 F.2d 1186, 1187 (C.A.4, 1991). ...
-
Moore v. Kagler
...against state officials sued in their individual capacity are not barred. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991); Goodman v. Rockefeller, 947 F.2d 1186, 1187 (4th Cir. 1991). Defendants' argument that plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be dismissed because the defendant is entitled to immu......
-
Correctional facilities
...searches, and body cavity searches. Id. 140. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; see also Flesher, supra note 115, at 859; Goodmon v. Rockefeller, 947 F.2d 1186, 1187 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding that the commissioner of a state Department of Corrections and prison officials, each acting in their individu......