Jones v. George

• Decision Date: 12 March 1982
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 79-3147.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
• Parties: Dolly JONES, individually and as Administratrix for Elmer Combs, Plaintiff, v. Frederic GEORGE, Joseph McCoy, Joe Prudich, Gary Shope, Bobby Leverette, Richard Mohn, Paul Kirby, John Massie, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Officer Isenhower, James P. Jarrett, Linda Meckfessel, Janet M. Raider, Norman E. Wood, George P. Naum, all of whom are sued in both their individual capacities and their official capacities as employees or officers of the State of West Virginia, Defendants.

533 F. Supp. 1293

Dolly JONES, individually and as Administratrix for Elmer Combs, Plaintiff, v. Frederic GEORGE, Joseph McCoy, Joe Prudich, Gary Shope, Bobby Leverette, Richard Mohn, Paul Kirby, John Massie, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Officer Isenhower, James P. Jarrett, Linda Meckfessel, Janet M. Raider, Norman E. Wood, George P. Naum, all of whom are sued in both their individual capacities and their official capacities as employees or officers of the State of West Virginia, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 79-3147.

United States District Court, S. D. West Virginia, Huntington Division.

March 12, 1982.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

James B. McIntyre, James M. Haviland, Charleston, W. Va., for plaintiff.

Edward W. Eardley, Chauncey Browning, Jr., Atty. Gen., David E. Cleek, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, W. Va., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

STAKER, District Judge.

This case, involving claims of the false arrest and false imprisonment of, the denial of adequate medical care to, and the wrongful death of, a West Virginia State Penitentiary inmate, is one of both legal and factual complexity. Joined as defendants herein are the Governor of West Virginia; Assistant Attorneys General for West Virginia; the Commissioner and an Official of the West Virginia Department of Corrections; the members of the West Virginia Board of Probation and Parole; the Warden and a former Warden of the West Virginia State Penitentiary; and other employees of the Penitentiary, including two physicians, a paramedic, a records keeper and a security officer.¹ The original complaint, filed in this case on May 26, 1979, has been superseded by an amended complaint filed on June 15, 1981.²

Now before the court are motions, filed by different defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the complaint, along with memoranda in support thereof and in opposition thereto.³ Those defendants having filed such a motion are: Frederic George and Joe Prudich (Attorney General's Office); Joseph McCoy and Gary Shope (Department of Corrections); Bobby Leverette and Richard Mohn (Wardens); John D. Rockefeller, IV (Governor); and James P. Jarrett, Linda Meckfessel and Janet M. Raider (Board of Probation and Parole).⁴ In ruling on these motions, the pleadings, insofar as such is required,⁵ will be construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Williamson v. Waugh, 160 F.Supp. 72 (S.D.W.Va.1958).

I. Prefatory Material

A. Facts

The factual situation underlying this complaint is, to say the least, unusual, not well-defined and in dispute in minor and major particulars. Even though the apparent discrepancies and gaps are in large part irrelevant for purposes of considering the within motions, for reasons of explanation, the court now presents what it perceives the parties' factual positions to be.

According to the plaintiff:

1. Elmer Combs (hereafter, Combs or decedent) had been incarcerated for several years, off-and-on from 1949 to 1969, in the West Virginia State Penitentiary at Moundsville;

2. By early June of 1969, all prior convictions rendered against Combs had been voided, and he was sometime thereafter released from custody;

3. After June 6, 1969, and throughout the remainder of his lifetime, Combs was not charged with or convicted of any criminal behavior whatsoever, and there were no criminal charges pending against him;

4. From approximately August, 1975 to August 9, 1978, Combs resided with his mother and stepfather in Logan County, West Virginia;

5. On or about August 9, 1978, Combs was arrested without probable cause and later taken to the West Virginia State Penitentiary, where he was once again incarcerated, plaintiff asserts unlawfully;

6. From at least August 16, 1978 until approximately January 8, 1979, Combs' family devoted their energies to attempting to secure his release from custody. Toward this end, they were in contact with several of the named defendants, including George, Prudich, Shope and Rockefeller. Combs' family was assured that the matter was being looked into as expeditiously as possible;

7. On or about January 8, 1979, while in solitary confinement at the West Virginia State Penitentiary, Combs died.

According to the defendants:

1. In April, 1970, West Virginia State Penitentiary inmate Elmer Combs was transferred from that facility to Huntington State Hospital, Huntington, West Virginia, for mental health treatment and care;

2. Sometime around mid-1975, Combs brought an action in the Circuit Court of Cabell County, West Virginia, alleging impropriety in his commitment to Huntington State Hospital and seeking release therefrom;

3. The Circuit Court of Cabell County, Robert C. Conaty, J., sustained Combs' request for relief and ordered his release from Huntington State Hospital. This release was effected sometime around mid-1975;

4. For reasons not known to the State, Combs was not, upon his release from Huntington State, immediately returned to the West Virginia State Penitentiary to continue serving his sentence of incarceration;

5. On or about August 9, 1978, at the behest of the Office of the Attorney General for the State of West Virginia, Combs was arrested in Logan County, West Virginia, and later transported to Moundsville, where he was reincarcerated to serve that portion of his sentence remaining unserved by him;

6. Certain contacts were made by Combs' family to some of the named defendants regarding Combs' situation during the approximate period August 1978-January 1979;

7. On or about January 8, 1979, while still incarcerated, defendants assert lawfully, at Moundsville, Combs committed suicide.

B. Claims and Jurisdiction

The complaint alleges that:

This Court's jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3)⁶ and (4)⁷ and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.⁸ This is a civil action for damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983⁹ to redress the deprivations, under color of state law, of rights secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff also invokes the pendent jurisdiction of this Court with respect to state law claims.... The damages sustained by the plaintiff exceed $10,000.00. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201-2202.

(Complaint, Paragraph 1)

The complaint also lists six "causes of action," each in a separate paragraph. Those paragraphs, along with some accompanying explanatory language, appear to be alleging the following claims against the following defendants:¹⁰

Punitive Damages:

Stated basis: All actions alleged were done with the actual knowledge that decedent's rights were being violated; defendants were oppressive, malicious and grossly negligent; defendant's conduct was willful and wanton; defendants had a reckless disregard for decedent's civil rights.

Declaratory Relief:

Stated basis: 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, seeking adjudication that defendants unlawfully arrested and/or incarcerated decedent; and, that once decedent was incarcerated, that defendants did not provide him with adequate treatment or protection.

Attorney Fees and Costs:

Stated basis: 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

C. Relief Sought by the within Motions to Dismiss

While the motions are presented in a somewhat disjointed fashion, the relief they all basically seek is:

1. The dismissal of all defendants in their official capacities;

2. The dismissal of claims made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

3. The dismissal of state law claims made pursuant to this court's pendent jurisdiction.¹²

II. Discussion:

A. Dismissal of Defendants in their Official Capacities

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, that:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Despite the language "against one of the United States by Citizens of another state," the case law interpreting this constitutional provision makes it clear that the bar also extends to suits brought by citizens of the defendant-state. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974); Parden v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U.S. 184, 84 S.Ct. 1207, 12 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964). And, suit is additionally disallowed by the Eleventh Amendment when a state, not a named defendant, is a defendant-in-fact. Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra; Edelman v. Jordan, supra. As a matter of practice, this latter circumstance occurs when any money judgment rendered would be paid out of state funds. In this case, it is certain and undisputed that any such judgment awarded plaintiff and rendered against defendants in their official capacities would be paid by the State of West Virginia.

There is, however, a situation to which the Eleventh Amendment's bar does not apply: when a state gives its consent to suit being filed against it. Edelman, supra, 415 U.S. at 662-63, 94 S.Ct. at 1355-56. In this regard, plaintiff has made no allegation in her complaint that the State of West Virginia has consented to suit herein. Indeed, it appears that the State is currently unable to grant permission for this or like suits (See Alabama v. Pugh, infra), because of West Virginia's corollary to the Eleventh Amendment, W.Va.Const., Art. VI, § 35:

The State of West Virginia shall never be made defendant in any court of law or equity, except the State of West Virginia, including any subdivision thereof, or any municipality therein, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof, may be made defendant in any garnishment or attachment proceeding, as garnishee or suggestee.

(emphasis added)

The Supreme Court of the United States has stated, in Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978), that Art. I, § 14 of the Alabama Constitution precludes Alabama from waiving...