Greene v. The Putnam Cnty. Comm'n
| Decision Date | 10 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:21-0520 |
| Parties | LESLIS MAY GREENE, individually and on behalf of her minor child, B.G., Plaintiff, v. THE PUTNAM COUNTY COMMISSION, MARK A. SORSAIA, individually as a member of the Putnam County Prosecutor's Office, JENNIFER SCRAGG KARR, individually as a member of the Putnam County Prosecutor's Office, ELIZABETH SUNYOG, individually as a member of the Putnam County Prosecutor's Office, MARIAN SMITH, individually as a member of the Putnam County Prosecutor's Office, TONY CRAIGO, individually as a member of the Putnam County Sheriff's Department, JODI B. TYLER, individually as a member of the Kanawha County Prosecutor's Office, MORGAN M. SWITZER, individually as a member of the Kanawha County Prosecutor's Office, C. J EASTRIDGE, individually as a member of the West Virginia State Police, THE CITY OF HURRICANE, JOSHUA LUCAS, individually as a member of the City of Hurricane Police Department, and JAMES MARK MCCOY a/k/a MARK MCCOY, individually, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
Pending before the Court is Defendant Eastridge's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 15. Defendant contends he is immune under qualified immunity and the Tort Claims Act, at least one claim is time-barred, and that other claims fail as a matter of law. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def C.J Eastridge's Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 16. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ECF No. 15.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The facts before the Court involve a complicated set of agencies and actors. The Complaint alleges a conspiracy where Defendant government agencies and employees worked together with Defendant Mark McCoy (McCoy), the father of Plaintiff's child, to frame Plaintiff for a number of misdemeanor and felony offenses and deprive Plaintiff of custody of her child, B.G.
Defendants[1] in this case include:
Plaintiff brings the following claims against the Defendants:
Count Number
Description
Defendants
Fourth Amendment Unreasonable Seizure Violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ()
False arrest-Craigo, Lucas, Eastridge
Unreasonable search and seizure-Eastridge
False imprisonment-Individual Law Enforcement Defendants
Malicious Prosecution/abuse of process-Individual Law Enforcement Defendants
Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Individual Law Enforcement Defendants, Putnam County Commission and City of Hurricane (vicarious liability)
Individual Law Enforcement Defendants, Putnam County Commission and City of Hurricane (vicarious liability)
Individual Law Enforcement Defendants, Putnam County Commission and City of Hurricane (vicarious liability)
Individual Law Enforcement Defendants, Putnam County Commission and City of Hurricane (vicarious liability)
Individual Law Enforcement Defendants, Putnam County Commission and City of Hurricane (vicarious liability)
Individual Law Enforcement Defendants, Putnam County Commission and City of Hurricane (vicarious liability)
Defamation of Character/Libel
Putnam County Sheriff's Department, Putnam County Commission (vicarious liability)
Defamation of Character/Slander
Putnam County Sheriff's Department, Putnam County Commission (vicarious liability)
Individual Law Enforcement Defendants, Defendant McCoy, Victim Services Coordinator Smith, Putnam County Commission and City of Hurricane (vicarious liability)
Negligent Supervision
Putnam County Commission and City of Hurricane
Negligent Retention
Putnam County Commission and City of Hurricane
Loss/Impairment of Parental Consortium
See Am. Compl., ECF No. 4. The Court has included the facts relevant to Defendant Eastridge below. For a summary of the overall sequence of events giving rise to these claims, see the Memorandum Opinion and Order on Defendants Tyler and Switzer's Motion to Dimiss. ECF No 45 at 2-9.
Following a series of domestic disputes and proceedings regarding custody of B.G., Plaintiff claims that McCoy made false allegations of stalking against her to the West Virginia State Police (WVSP) on September 22, 2018. ECF No. 4 ¶ 117. On October 3, 2018, Defendant Eastridge obtained a search warrant for Plaintiff's cellular phone. ECF No 1-10. Plaintiff contends that both Defendant Eastridge and McCoy made false and misleading statements to obtain the search warrant. Id. ¶ 121. Further, though the first page of the search warrant contains a magistrate's signature, ECF No. 1-10, Plaintiff refers to it as “unverified,” ECF No. 4 ¶ 119. And though Defendant Eastridge signed the first and last pages of the warrant, Plaintiff also refers to it as “unsworn,” lacking in an affidavit from either Defendant Eastridge or McCoy, and without probable cause. Id. ¶¶ 123-24. Plaintiff additionally alleges the warrant lacked probable cause because no return of execution was filed on it, as required by West Virginia Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(a) and (g). Id. ¶¶ 125-26.
Defendant Eastridge took possession of Plaintiff's phone pursuant to the warrant, though Plaintiff alleges no reasonable well-trained officer would believe the warrant supplied sufficient legal authority to search, seize, and review data from it. Id. ¶¶ 125, 127, 166-67. Plaintiff claims the West Virginia State Police then searched the entire contents of the cell phone, including private information, personal e-mails, and communications protected by attorney-client privilege, some of which Defendant Eastridge knew or should have known was outside the scope of the search warrant. Id. ¶¶ 128-29, 169. Plaintiff also notes that the warrant does not mention intercepting electronic communications on its face, yet information law enforcement obtained because of the warrant was later used to prosecute Plaintiff for intercepting electronic communications. Id. ¶ 131.
On January 29, 2019, Defendant Eastridge arrested Plaintiff based on her alleged stalking of McCoy. Id. ¶ 139. During a preliminary hearing, Plaintiff claims that both Defendant Eastridge and McCoy offered false and misleading testimony. Id. ¶¶ 143-44. In particular, she claims Defendant Eastridge 1) corroborated a story that had been fabricated by McCoy about Plaintiff following him, and 2) intimated that he knew the stalking charges against Plaintiff were baseless but “just wanted to see what was on” her phone. Id. ¶¶ 149-50. Following this hearing, Plaintiff was denied bond and remained incarcerated for forty-two days. Id. ¶ 140.
On March 7, 2019, a grand jury indicted Plaintiff for fifteen counts of felony stalking, felony interception of electronic communications, and other misdemeanor offenses (Indictment 2). Id. ¶ 154. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Eastridge used information-including attorney-client privileged emails from her cell phone-to offer false and misleading testimony during this hearing, resulting in his story materially changing from that contained in the search warrant. Id. ¶¶ 158-60, 164. Specifically she claims his testimony referenced a photograph of McCoy's brother's home that officers had found on her phone. Id. ¶ 161. Though he claimed Plaintiff took the photo, she alleges Defendant Eastridge cropped out portions of the photo that would establish Plaintiff had not taken it, such as the color of the vehicle it was taken from and the fingers of the individual who took it. Id. ¶ 162.
Plaintiff was indicted once again on November 14, 2019, this time for three felony counts of concealment of a minor child, stalking, and interception of electronic communications (Indictment 3). Id. ¶ 182. Plaintiff alleges that during this hearing, Defendant Eastridge once against used information from attorney-client privileged emails obtained from her phone, offered the same false and misleading testimony that he offered for the preliminary hearing, and testified as to fabricated evidence. Id. ¶¶ 195-99, 201. Plaintiff claims, as with Indictment 2, that Defendant Eastridge knew or should have known the information he presented to the grand jury was obtained illegally, without probable cause, and outside the scope of the warrant. Id. ¶¶ 204-06.
In support of his Motion to Dismiss, Defendant first argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity for each of the counts against him. ECF No. 16 at 6. He also argues that Plaintiff's challenges to the sufficiency of the warrant are time-barred. Id. at 11. In the alternative, he contends that she has not pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution or due process or to state a claim for negligence, gross negligence, or prima facie negligence; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial