Holbrook v. W. Va. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth.
| Decision Date | 06 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:16-cv-03705 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | SHANE STEPHEN HOLBROOK, Plaintiff, v. WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL & CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY; and TRINITY SERVICES GROUP, INC. Defendants. |
On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff Shane Stephen Holbrook ("Holbrook"), proceeding pro se, and then-incarcerated at Western Regional Jail in Barboursville, West Virginia, filed a complaint against Defendants Trinity Services Group, Inc. ("Trinity") and West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority ("the Jail Authority") claiming injury to his back right bottom molar as a result of biting down on a rock contained in food served to him at the jail. (ECF No. 2.) Pending before the Court are Trinity's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) and the Jail Authority's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 25.) The motions were briefed, and the undersigned conducted a status conference on November 28, 2016. (ECF No. 28.)
This matter is assigned to the Honorable Robert C. Chambers, United StatesDistrict Judge, and by standing order has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for the submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Having thoroughly reviewed Holbrook's allegations and Defendants' motions, the undersigned FINDS that the complaint fails to state a constitutional claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear a negligence claim in this case, and the Jail Authority is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Therefore, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the presiding District Judge GRANT Trinity's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11); DISMISS the complaint against Trinity, without prejudice; GRANT the Jail Authority's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25); DISMISS the complaint against the Jail Authority, with prejudice; and REMOVE this matter from the docket of the Court.
Holbrook alleges in his complaint that on March 5, 2016, while incarcerated at the Western Regional Jail in Barboursville, West Virginia, his back right bottom molar was cracked when he bit down on a rock contained in his food. (ECF No. 2.) Holbrook filed a grievance regarding the incident and subsequently had his tooth extracted. (Id.) Holbrook alleges that his injury was caused by Defendants' negligence in hiring, training, retaining, supervising, and maintaining employees who could provide a safe food service; failing to check and clean the food for foreign objects such as the rock; and failing to warn Holbrook of the hazard in his food. (Id.) Holbrook seeks monetary damages of $750,000 for pain and suffering, future medical fees, and punitive damages. (Id.) He has since transferred to South Central Regional Jail in Charleston. (ECF No. 17.)
At the status conference held on November 28, 2016, Holbrook confirmed that his tooth was damaged by a rock contained in beans he was served at the jail. Holbrookidentified three inmates, who allegedly witnessed the incident, as well as the correctional officer to whom he gave the rock thereafter. Holbrook reported that his tooth was cracked in half and, although he did not want to have his tooth pulled, the dentist determined that extraction was the proper course of action. Holbrook reported suffering from dry socket after the extraction, which required additional care. He indicated that the symptoms and aftercare related to his damaged tooth lasted for about a week, but he has had no additional problems since then. Holbrook did not pay for any of his dental care.
When questioned about the facts supporting his complaint, Holbrook stated that he had heard "rumors" of similar incidents occurring at the jail. In particular, he heard that at least two other inmates had encountered foreign objects in their food, although he could not recall the names of those inmates. Holbrook admitted that he did not know of any specific individual who intentionally caused the rock to be present in his beans, nor could he supply evidence of negligence aside from the presence of the rock itself and the rumors of other similar, but unspecified, incidents.
On June 20, 2016, Trinity filed a motion and supporting memorandum moving to dismiss Holbrook's complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 11; ECF No. 12.) Trinity's motion is silent as to whether it requests a dismissal with or without prejudice, but in its supporting memorandum, Trinity clarifies that it seeks a dismissal with prejudice. (Id.) Trinity notes that Holbrook's complaint could be construed as raising either a claim under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or a state law negligence claim.3 (ECF No. 12.) Trinityargues that, to the extent Holbrook raises a constitutional claim, the Court should dismiss the claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. According to Trinity, the isolated incident of food contamination alleged by Holbrook does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. (Id.) Moreover, to the extent that Holbrook raises a state law negligence claim, Trinity argues the Court should dismiss the claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because Holbrook's allegations do not raise a federal question and there is not complete diversity between the parties. (Id.) On November 8, 2016, Holbrook filed a short response to Trinity's Motion to Dismiss, asserting that the Court does not lack subject matter jurisdiction and confirming that the alleged events occurred in Barboursville, West Virginia. (ECF No. 23.)
On November 11, 2016 the Jail Authority filed a Motion to Dismiss Holbrook's complaint, with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and for immunity from liability. (ECF No. 25.) The Jail Authority also filed a supporting memorandum arguing that, to the extent Holbrook asserts his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Jail Authority is not a "person" for the purposes that statute. (ECF No. 26.) The Jail Authority further argues that, to the extent Holbrook raises a negligence claim, it is entitled to "qualified immunity." (Id.) Although the Jail Authority's papers did not explicitly invoke sovereign immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, at the November 28, 2016 status conference counsel for the Jail Authority clarified that it was invoking sovereign immunity. The Jail Authority's supporting memorandum also argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). (ECF No. 26.) Holbrook did not file a response to the Jail Authority's motion as of the December 2, 2016 deadline for doing so.
Holbrook has filed his complaint pro se, and courts are required to liberally construe pro se complaints. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 (2007). However, even under this less stringent standard, the complaint still must contain sufficient factual allegations to support a valid legal cause of action. Bass v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003). A court is not required to rewrite pleadings to include claims that were never presented, Parker v. Champion, 148 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir. 1998), construct the plaintiff's legal arguments for him, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 417-18 (7th Cir. 1993), or "conjure up questions never squarely presented" to the court. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint to state a claim. A complaint fails to state a claim when, accepting the plaintiff's well-pled allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences, the complaint lacks "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 127 (2007). Plausibility requires allegations that "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 555. Consequently, the complaint must include "facts sufficient to state all the elements of [the plaintiff's] claim." Bass v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003).
A motion under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges a court's subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion can be presented in two ways. First, the movant may claim that the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint are not true. Id. Then, a court "is to regard the pleadings' allegations as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment." Richmond,Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991) (citing Adams, 697 F.2d at 1219). Second, the movant may contend, as Trinity and the Jail Authority have done here, that "a complaint simply fails to allege facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction can be based." Adams, 697 F.2d at 1219. When presented with this contention, a court assumes that the allegations in the complaint are true and affords the plaintiff the same procedural protection he would receive under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. The burden of proving that a court has subject matter jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff as he is the party asserting it. Johnson v. N. Carolina, 905 F. Supp. 2d 712, 719 (W.D.N.C. 2012). However, a court should grant dismissal "only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Id.
"The Fourth Circuit has not resolved whether a motion to dismiss based on the Eleventh Amendment is properly considered pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6)." Haley v. Va. Dep't of Health, Case No....
To continue reading
Request your trial