J.W v. Knight, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-cv-01277
| Decision Date | 24 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-cv-01277 |
| Parties | J.W., Plaintiff, v. HON. DAVID W. KNIGHT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
This action, in which the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the U.S. Constitution invalidates a state trial court's order forcing her to undergo a pelvic examination, has been remanded to this court by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In remanding the case, the Fourth Circuit vacated my determination that the action was moot. As explained below, the case has once again become moot, but for different reasons than were considered by the Fourth Circuit on appeal.
This case has a complicated procedural history, having made its way through West Virginia's state courts, the U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari process, motions practice in this court, and the early stages of appellate review by the Fourth Circuit. It all began with West Virginia's criminal prosecution of two brothers — Jason and Jeffrey Wilson — in the Circuit Court of Mercer County, West Virginia. The Wilson brothers were charged with sexually abusing their sister, J.W., between 2003 and 2005, when she was between nine and eleven years old. As part of his defense, Jason Wilson moved to force J.W., who was then fifteen years old, to undergo a physical examination bymedical professionals. On January 27, 2009, over the prosecution's objection, the state trial court granted the motion and ordered the examination.1
On March 6, 2009, the prosecution filed an application for a writ of prohibition, on behalf of J.W., with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The prosecution argued that, because of the victim's young age and in light of the long period of time between the alleged abuse and the planned examination, it was unlikely that any probative evidence would be produced by a physical examination. By a written opinion issued on May 19, 2009, the Supreme Court of Appeals denied the writ of prohibition. See State v. Knight, 679 S.E.2d 617, 622 (W. Va. 2009) (per curiam). In sum, the court ruled that the trial court had properly applied and considered the pertinent six-factor test under West Virginia law for assessing whether a party's request for a physical or mental examination should be granted. Id. at 620-22 (citing State v. Delaney, 417 S.E.2d 903, 904 (W. Va. 1992)).
J.W. then obtained counsel and filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on August 12, 2009. In her certiorari petition, J.W. maintained that, notwithstanding state law, her rights under the federal Constitution permitted her to remain free from an involuntary physical examination order. On October 20, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the petition without explanation. See J.W. v. Knight, 130 S. Ct. 461 (Oct. 20, 2009).
Thereafter, on May 14, 2010, J.W. filed the instant action in this court against the state court judge, the Hon. David W. Knight ("Judge Knight"), and Jason Wilson as the real party in interest. The Complaint contains four counts, predicated on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to theU.S. Constitution, and seeks a declaratory judgment that the state trial court "acted in violation of the federal constitution, " and an "order declaring that under the Supremacy Clause, a state court judge lacks authority to order a minor rape victim to submit to an unwanted pelvic examination." (Compl. [Docket 1].)
Judge Knight promptly filed a motion to dismiss the suit on several grounds, including mootness, various abstention doctrines, and claim preclusion. After J.W. filed an emergency motion to stay the state-court proceedings, I conducted a hearing on January 11, 2010. At the hearing, the lawyers explained that both Jeffrey Wilson and Jason Wilson planned to enter guilty pleas in the underlying criminal prosecutions, thus obviating the need for the forced physical examination of J.W.2 Accordingly, I denied the emergency motion as moot in an opinion issued on January 11, 2010 [Docket 16], and I granted Judge Knight's motion to dismiss the entire case as moot in an opinion filed on January 25, 2010 [Docket 18].
J.W. then appealed my ruling to the Fourth Circuit. See J.W. v. Knight, No. 10-1194 (4th Cir. 2010). On April 14, 2010, before J.W.'s opening appellate brief was filed, Judge Knight filed a motion in the Fourth Circuit to remand the case to this court because Jason Wilson's plea agreement had unraveled at his sentencing hearing and his case had instead been set for trial. In his motion, Judge Knight explained that, based on "information in the pre-sentence investigation report and other matters adduced at this hearing, [he] announced to the parties that he could not give final approval to the earlier tendered guilty pleas." (Mot. for Remand, at 4-5, No. 10-1194 [Docket 11] (4th Cir. Apr. 8, 2010).) In responding to Judge Knight's motion to remand, J.W. offered the samebasic version of events, noting that she faced "enforcement of the [physical examination] order now that the criminal trial is once again pending." (Pl.'s Resp to Mot. for Remand, at 2, No. 10-1194 [Docket 15] (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2010.) The next day, J.W. filed her opening brief in the Fourth Circuit, describing the same procedural posture and suggesting that "[irrespective of what happens in the state proceeding, this Court should consider the merits for several reasons." (Br. of Appellant, at 14, No. 10-1194 [Docket 22] (4th Cir. Apr. 14, 2010).)
During the pendency of the appeal in the Fourth Circuit, however, the procedural posture of this case changed dramatically when J.W. willingly submitted to the physical examination in question.3 Because the Fourth Circuit was not made aware of that material development, it was confronted with a limited record: my mootness ruling, predicated solely on Jason Wilson's guilty plea, followed by the subsequent rejection of that plea. Accordingly, on September 29, 2010, the Fourth Circuit issued an order vacating my earlier judgment and remanding for further proceedings in light of the withdrawal of Jason Wilson's guilty plea. See Order, No. 10-1194 (4th Cir. Sept. 29, 2010).
It was only after the Fourth Circuit's mandate issued and I ordered the parties to file supplemental memoranda concerning the remaining merits arguments that a more complete picture began to emerge. In a rendering of the facts and procedural history that is thoroughly baffling, counsel for J.W. has submitted a fifty-page brief on remand that only mentions in passing — as partof a brief passage recounting a telephone call with the former prosecutor — the significant fact that J.W. has already undergone the physical examination on which this case turns. Not only that, but counsel also speculates that the examination "presumably" occurred while the appeal was pending before the Fourth Circuit. (Pl.'s Supp. Mem. at 10 [Docket 28].) This uncertainty is troubling, as it suggests that J.W.'s counsel may not be fully informed of the facts that are material to her client's case.
Judge Knight's supplemental brief on remand also does not fully articulate how the underlying criminal cases progressed in state court. He explains that, subsequent to the March 2010 hearing at which Jason Wilson's plea agreement was rejected, J.W. underwent the physical examination. The examination results were submitted to Judge Knight for in camera review, and counsel was then given access to the records. Fortunately, the documents submitted by Judge Knight to this court on remand clarify how J.W. came to submit to the examination, and, more importantly, demonstrate that J.W. willingly submitted to the examination. One of Judge Knight's orders summarizes the March 2010 hearing as follows:
The Court inquired whether acceptance of the [Wilson brothers'] tendered please [sic] would entail registration of these Defendants as Sex Offenders pursuant to WV Code § 15-12-1. Defense counsel for Jason Wilson replied that such a requirement would result in withdrawal of the tendered plea. The Court then heard statements from the alleged victim [J.W.] and her parents in opposition to the plea agreement. The Court briefly adjourned the hearing to allow the alleged victim and family to meet with the Assistant Prosecutor in camera and discuss these matters.
Upon resumption of the hearing, the State advised the Court that the alleged victim is opposed to the plea offered to the Defendants, and that the State wishes to proceed to trial. The State further advised that the alleged victim, J.W., is willing to undergo the physical examination previously ORDERED by this Court on the 27th day of January, 2009, on motion of Defendant Jason Wilson.
(Order of June 7, 2010, at 1-2 (emphasis added), State v. Wilson, No. 08-F-143 [Docket 29-1, Ex. 2].) J.W. does not in any way dispute this version of the events in state court.
Judge Knight has subsequently filed another supplemental memorandum [Docket 32], in which he explains that the underlying criminal cases against Jason Wilson and Jeffrey Wilson have been resolved. The criminal case against Jeffrey Wilson was dismissed by the prosecution on November 17, 2010, and, on January 7, 2011, Judge Knight accepted a guilty plea from Jason Wilson and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence with five years probation.
In light of these developments, the parties have filed lengthy memoranda addressing whether this case is once again moot. They mostly focus their arguments on the developments in the two underlying criminal cases, but I am more concerned with a salient development in the underlying state-court proceedings — that, at some point while this matter was pending before the Fourth Circuit, J.W. willingly submitted to the physical examination with which this case is concerned. This opinion primarily takes up that issue.
The business of federal courts is limited to deciding "Cases" and "Controversies." In re...
To continue reading
Request your trial