Reid v. Sandy

• Decision Date: 28 March 2022
• Docket Number: CIVIL 3:20-CV-166 (GROH)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
• Parties: ROGER REID, Plaintiff, v. JEFF S. SANDY, personally and in his official capacity as Secretary of West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety, BETSY JIVIDEN, personally and in her official capacity as Department of Corrections Commissioner, JOHN SHEELEY, personally and in his official capacity as Eastern Regional Jail Warden/Superintendent, DONTREWELL E. KELLEY, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, STEVEN ZENTMYER, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, ERIC D. TOMLINSON, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, DEVIN JOSHUA NEIL, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, SPENCER MATTHEW MEACHUM, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, DALTON EUGENE NICODEMUS, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, BERNARDO SANTOS, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, KYLE WILCOM, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, and VINCENZO CARINELLI, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, Defendants.

ROGER REID, Plaintiff,
v.
JEFF S. SANDY, personally and in his official capacity as Secretary of West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety, BETSY JIVIDEN, personally and in her official capacity as Department of Corrections Commissioner, JOHN SHEELEY, personally and in his official capacity as Eastern Regional Jail Warden/Superintendent, DONTREWELL E. KELLEY, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, STEVEN ZENTMYER, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, ERIC D. TOMLINSON, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, DEVIN JOSHUA NEIL, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, SPENCER MATTHEW MEACHUM, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, DALTON EUGENE NICODEMUS, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, BERNARDO SANTOS, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, KYLE WILCOM, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, and VINCENZO CARINELLI, correctional officer, personally and in his official capacity, Defendants.

CIVIL No. 3:20-CV-166 (GROH)

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg Division

March 28, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN PART

GINA M. GROH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 68. Pursuant to this Court's Local

1

Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R on December 14, 2021.

In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the Plaintiff's Complaint be denied and dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants Sandy, Jividen, and Sheeley; Counts One, Three, Five and Six be denied and dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants Kelley^[1], Zentmyer^[2], Tomlinson, Santos, Wilcom^[3], Keller^[4], Neil, Meachum, Nicodemus^[5] and Carinelli acting in their official capacity; Count Six be denied and dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants Kelley, Zentmyer, Tomlinson, Santos, Wilcom, Neil, Meachum, Nicodemus and Carinelli acting in their personal capacity; and Counts One, Three and Five should proceed for further disposition as to Defendants Kelley, Zentmyer, Tomlinson, Santos, Wilcom, Neil, Meachum, Nicodemus and Carinelli acting in their personal capacity. The R&R further recommended that Defendants Sandy, Jividen and Sheeley's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 43] be granted; Defendants' Carinelli, Kelley and Nicodemus's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 47] be granted in part; Defendant Neil's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 51] be granted in part and Defendant Meachum's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 52] be granted in part.

For the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the R&R IN PART. In deviating from the R&R, this Court will dismiss Count Three without prejudice and Count

2

Four with prejudice as to Defendants Kelley, Zentmyer, Tomlinson, Santos, Wilcom, Neil, Meachum, Nicodemus and Carinelli acting in their personal capacity. Further, the Court will grant Defendant Neil's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 51] and grant Defendant Meachum's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 52]. The claims made in Count One and Five of the complaint, against all Correctional Officer Defendants, except Defendants Neil and Meachum who are dismissed from the Complaint entirely, will be allowed to proceed for further disposition.

I. BACKGROUND

Upon review of the record, the Court finds that the facts as explained in the R&R accurately and succinctly describe the circumstances underlying the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court incorporates those facts herein. However, the Court has outlined the most relevant facts below and added additional details where necessary.

A. Procedural History

The Plaintiff, through counsel, initially filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 31, 2019.^[6] ECF No. 1. The Clerk of Court notified the Plaintiff of his deficient pleading, and the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 9, 2020. ECF No. 7. After the Plaintiff failed to pay the initial partial filing fee, this Court dismissed the Plaintiff's amended complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute on January 12, 2021. ECF No. 14. Upon payment from the Plaintiff and the Court's granting of the

3

Plaintiff's motion to amend, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on February 3, 2021. ECF No. 21. A third, and final, amended complaint was filed on April 30, 2021. ECF No. 34.

The Plaintiff's present complaint was brought “to redress the deprivation under color of law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, ” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 34 at ¶ 1. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3). The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and “29 USC §§ 2283 & 2284.” ECF No. 34 at ¶ 2. However, the Court notes that these two code sections fall within the workforce investment systems chapter of the labor title of the United States Code, and both have been repealed. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2283, 2284. The Plaintiff does not expand upon the injunctive relief sought. Lastly, as it pertains to this Court's jurisdiction, the Plaintiff asserts that he “has constructively exhausted all administrative remedies.” ECF No. 34 at ¶ 5.

The Defendants named in the complaint can be separated into two groups: correctional officers and administrators. Defendants Kelley, Zentmyer, Tomlinson, Santos, Wilcom, Neil, Meachum, Nicodemus and Carinelli, (collectively, “Correctional Officer Defendants”), were, at the time of the incidents alleged, employed as correctional officers at the Eastern Regional Jail. Defendants Sandy, Jividen and Sheeley (collectively, “Administrator Defendants”), were all employed in an administrative capacity with either the State of West Virginia or the Eastern Regional Jail. All Defendants were named in both their official and personal capacities. The Complaint includes six counts: (1) a violation of the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual

4

punishment against the Correctional Officer Defendants, (2) a violation of the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment against the Administrator Defendants, (3) a violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment against all named Defendants, (4) negligent training and oversight and failure to act on repeated constitutional violations against the Administrator Defendants, (5) assault and battery against the Correctional Officer Defendants and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress against all named Defendants.

Defendants Sandy, Jividen and Sheeley filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on June 2, 2021. ECF No. 43. In their supporting Memorandum of Law, the Administrator Defendants aver that they are immune from suit in their personal capacity due to qualified immunity, that they are immune from suit in their official capacity due to sovereign immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment, and that the Plaintiff has failed to plead facts plausibly suggestive of a claim for relief. ECF No. 44.

Defendants Carinelli, Kelley and Nicodemus, all of whom are correctional officers, filed a partial motion to dismiss on June 14, 2021. ECF No. 47. Therein, Defendants Carinelli, Kelley and Nicodemus invoke protection under sovereign immunity for the Plaintiff's claims against them in their official capacity. The three correctional officer Defendants also argue that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for deprivation of due process under the Fifth Amendment as presented in Count Three of the complaint. Defendants Nicodemus, Kelley and Carinelli filed separate answers to the Plaintiff's third amended complaint, but each answer raises the same five defenses. Most of the Defendants' defenses are also raised in their motion to dismiss; however, the Defendants more broadly assert that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim generally, and here, for

5

the first time, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the underlying complaint. ECF Nos. 48 at 2, 49 at 2, 50 at 2.

Defendant Neil and Defendant Meachum separately filed Motions to Dismiss, [ECF Nos. 51, 52, respectively] but both motions raise the same three arguments: (1) the Plaintiff failed to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation, for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for a Fifth Amendment violation; (2) qualified immunity protects them from the Plaintiff's claims against them in their personal capacity and (3) sovereign immunity protects them from the Plaintiff's claims against them in their official capacity.

Magistrate Judge Trumble filed an R&R in this case on December 14, 2021. ECF No. 68. Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen days. The Plaintiff, by counsel, filed objections on December 28, 2021. ECF No. 71. Defendants Carinelli, Kelley and Nicodemus submitted objections on December 28, 2021, as well. ECF No. 72.

Subsequent to the filing of the R&R and objections, Defendants Tomlinson, Zentmyer and Wilcom filed a partial motion to dismiss jointly and answers to the Plaintiff's complaint separately. ECF Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82. In the Defendants' motion to dismiss, they assert the protection of sovereign immunity for the Plaintiff's claims against them in their official capacity and aver that the Plaintiff has failed to state claims for a deprivation of due process under the Fifth Amendment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. ECF No. 79. While Defendants Tomlinson, Zentmyer and Wilcom each filed answers to the Plaintiff's third amended complaint separately, they all assert the...