Nutter v. Mellinger, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00787
| Decision Date | 23 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00787 |
| Parties | MATTHEW NUTTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROSS H. MELLINGER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
Pending before the court is a Motion to Dismiss certain claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) filed by defendants: Ross Mellinger in his individual and official capacity as Chief Deputy Sheriff; L. M. Casto in his individual and official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff; S.C. Fisher in his individual and official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff; B. A. DeWees in his individual and official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff; Tony Boggs in his individual and official capacity as the Sheriff; and the Jackson County Commission of the State of West Virginia (the "Jackson County Commission") as the body politic governing the Jackson County Sheriff's Department. [ECF No. 11]. Plaintiffs, Matthew Nutter and Carrie Barnette, have not responded and the time period to do so has elapsed. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
This lawsuit arose out of events that took place during an eviction at the Rolling Meadow Village Housing Complex (the "Housing Complex"). Defendant, the Housing Authority, is a private non-profit organization that owns and operates the Housing Complex. Defendant, Allyson Fields, works as the Public Housing Administrator for the Housing Authority. Plaintiff, Carrie Barnette, resided at the Housing Complex. On or about February 25, 2019, plaintiff Barnette received a notice to vacate her apartment from the Housing Authority. Pls.' Compl. ¶ 10 [ECF No. 1].
Plaintiffs allege that on or about April 5, 2019, defendants, Chief Deputy Ross Mellinger, Deputy L. M. Casto, Deputy B.A. DeWees, and Deputy S.C. Fisher, were present at the Housing Complex in the course of their employment with the Jackson County West Virginia Sheriff's Department answering a disturbance call. Id. at ¶ 12. Defendant Fields requested that the Deputy Sheriffs assist with the eviction of plaintiff Barnette. Id. at ¶ 12.
Plaintiffs allege that defendant Deputy Sheriffs and defendant Fields subsequently entered plaintiff Barnette's residence. Id. at ¶ 13. At that time, plaintiff Matthew Nutter, who was present at plaintiff Barnette's apartment to assist with moving, was asleep on the couch. Id. at ¶ 10, ¶ 13. Plaintiffs further allege that "some or all of the defendant Deputy Sheriffs pulled the plaintiff Nutter off the couch while he was still asleep and... proceeded to attack plaintiff Nutter, using deadly and excessive force, and tazed [sic] him on multiple occasions." Id. at ¶ 14. The Deputy Sheriffs then placed plaintiff Nutter in handcuffs and dragged him outside, where they proceeded to tear off his cloths and continued to beat him. Id. at ¶ 14. Plaintiff Nutter claims he suffered "head and facial injuries and other injuries" from the incident. Id. The Complaint avers that throughout this alleged assault, plaintiff Nutter was compliant, did not provoke the Sheriffs, did not defend himself with force, and did not attempt to flee. Id. at ¶ 13-14. The police then charged plaintiff Nutter with four counts of "battery on a police officer," four counts of "obstruction," and "simplepossession." Id. at 19. Plaintiff Nutter subsequently entered a plea to one count of obstruction, resulting in the dismissal of all remaining charges. Id.
The Complaint also alleges that, while in plaintiff Barnette's apartment, defendant Deputy Mellinger "attacked" her, "throwing her across the room against the wall and stomping on her feet which had recently undergone surgery." Id. at ¶ 16. Plaintiffs claim that throughout the incident, plaintiff Barnette did not pose a threat, did not provoke defendant Deputy Sheriffs, and was compliant. Id. at 17. Plaintiff Barnette alleges that the attack resulted in "physical injuries, pain and suffering, emotional injuries, and [that she] suffered otherwise." Id. at ¶ 16. Plaintiffs also claim that "at no time from February 25, 2019 up to and including April 5, 2019 did the Housing Authority commence eviction or wrongful occupation proceedings against Plaintiff Barnette." Id. at ¶ 11. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendant Deputy Sheriffs and defendant Fields did not have a court order when they entered Ms. Barnette's residence on April 5, 2019. Id. at ¶ 12.
Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against all Deputy Sheriffs present during the incident, Tony Boggs (the Sheriff of Jackson County), the Jackson County Commission (the political subdivision of the State of West Virginia that governs the Jackson County Sheriff's Department), Allyson Fields in her individual and official capacity as the Public Housing Administrator of the Housing Authority, and the Housing Authority. Plaintiffs allege the following claims presumably against all defendants: Constitutional Tort (State Law - Count I ); Negligence (State Law - Count II ); Battery (State Law - Count III); Outrageous Conduct and Intentional Infliction (State Law - Count IV); Excessive Force and Illegal Seizure under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Federal Law - Count I ); Supervisory Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Federal Law - Count II); and Unlawful Conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 (Federal Law - Count III). On January 13, 2020, I granted theMotion to Dismiss [ECF No. 11] filed by defendants, the Housing Authority and Allyson Fields, on all counts. [ECF No. 15].
The Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 9] currently pending before the court requests the court dismiss the following: (1) all claims against defendant Deputies and the Sheriff in their official capacities; (2) all claims against the Jackson County Sheriff's Department; (3) Monell and Supervisory Liability claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Federal Law Claims - Count II); (4) Unlawful Conspiracy claims brough pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 (Federal Law Claims - Count III); (5) Constitutional Tort claims (State Law Claims - Count I); and (6) Negligence claims against defendant Deputies Casto, Fisher, DeWees, and Mellinger (State Law Claims - Count II). Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 2 [ECF No. 9].
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "When ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the Complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Farnsworth v. Loved Ones in Home Care, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-01334, 2019 WL 956806, at *1 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 27, 2019) (citing E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011)).
To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), plaintiff's factual allegations, taken as true, must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Robertson v. Sea Pines Real Estate Co., 679 F.3d 278, 288 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The plausibility standard is not a probability requirement, but "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ). Although "the Complaint must contain sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face, it nevertheless need only give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds on which it rests." Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC, 846 F.3d 757, 777 (4th Cir. 2017). Thus, "a Complaint is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice." Id.
First, I will address issues regarding which parties can be sued and for which types of claims. Defendants ask the court to dismiss all federal law claims against the Jackson County Sheriff's Department because it is not a legal entity that can sue and be sued. Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 6 [ECF No. 10]. Defendants would surely be correct if the Jackson County Sheriff's Department was a named party. See Revene v. Charles Cnty. Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870, 874 (4th Cir. 1989); see also Terlosky v. Matthews, No. 5:11CV26, 2011 WL 1302238, at *2 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 31, 2011) (); Rankin v. Berkeley Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 222 F. Supp. 2d 802, 807 (N.D.W. Va. 2002) (). However, plaintiffs did not name the Jackson County Sheriff's Department as a party. Plaintiffs sue the "Jackson County Commission," which the Complaint describes as "a body politic existing under the statute and laws of the State of West Virginia" that governs "the Jackson County Sheriff's Department, a subdivision thereof." Pls.' Compl. ¶ 7 [ECF No. 1]. I construe the Complaint to suethe Jackson County Commission as a named defendant. And I do not read the Complaint to name the Jackson County Sheriff's Department proper as a defendant in this case. Therefore, defendants' requests to dismiss claims made against the Jackson County Sheriff's Department are DENIED.
Plaintiffs' claims against defendant Deputies and defendant Sheriff Boggs in their official capacities are duplicative with the claims against the Jackson County Commission, the municipality. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). "Official-capacity suits, in contrast [to personal-capacity suits], generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent." Id.; see also Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 (1989)("[A] suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against...
To continue reading
Request your trial