Rivas-Lemus v. Henrico Cnty.

• Decision Date: 27 September 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:21cv528
• Parties: KATHERINE B. RIVAS-LEMUS, Plaintiff, v. HENRICO COUNTY, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

KATHERINE B. RIVAS-LEMUS, Plaintiff, v. HENRICO COUNTY, et al. Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:21cv528

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

September 27, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

M HANNAH LAUK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on Henrico County's (“Henrico” or “the County”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Katherine Rivas-Lemus's Amended Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”). (ECF No 19.) Rivas-Lemus brings this action against the County; the Henrico County Sheriffs Office; former Henrico County Sheriff Michael L. Wade (in his individual and official capacity) current Henrico County Sheriff Alisa Gregory (in her individual and official capacity) (collectively with Michael L. Wade, the “Sheriffs”); and unnamed officers of the Henrico County Sheriffs Office John Does 1 through 10, in their individual and official capacities (the “Officers”). (ECF No. 15.)

In her Amended Complaint, Rivas-Lemus claims that Defendants falsely imprisoned her and violated her constitutional rights under the Virginia Constitution and as protected by 42 U.S.C § 1983^[1] and the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.^[2] (ECF No. 15.) This occurred when Rivas-Lemus was detained at Henrico County Jail West pursuant to an non-mandatory immigration detainer request, despite her protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (“DACA”), and was subjected to an unwanted pregnancy test and overcrowded, poorly-ventilated, and unsanitary jail conditions. (ECF No. 15.)

The County filed a Motion to Dismiss Rivas-Lemus's Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 19), and Rivas-Lemus responded. (ECF No. 22.) The County replied. (ECF No. 23.) This matter is ripe for adjudication. The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not aid the decisional process. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1343, and 1367.^[3] For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Factual Background^[4]

Rivas-Lemus's claims stem from her detention at Henrico County Jail West from August 17,2019, through August 19,2019. (ECF No. 15 ¶ 11.) “At approximately 1:00 [a.m.] on August 17,2019, [Rivas-Lemus] was arrested in response to a domestic dispute phone call^[5] and taken to Henrico County Jail West.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 13.) Although officers initially informed Rivas-Lemus “she would be released in short order after receiving a [personal recognizance (‘PR')] bond from a magistrate,” they “later told [her she] needed to wait until 6:00 [a.m.] to be released when she would be ‘sober.'” (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 13-14.) Rivas-Lemus informed the deputies that she was not intoxicated and requested, but was denied, a sobriety test. (ECF No. 15 ¶ 14.)

At approximately 8:30 a.m., still on August 17, the Henrico County Sheriffs Office received an immigration detainer request that indicated “there was probable cause that [Rivas-Lemus] was a removable alien.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 19-20.) The detainer requested that the Department of Homeland Security be notified “before the alien [was] released from [the Sheriffs] custody” and that the Sherriff “[m]aintain custody of the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours beyond the time when [she] would otherwise have been released.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 21) (emphasis removed). The detainer stated that “[t]he alien must be served with a copy of [the] form for the detainer to take effect.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 21) (emphasis removed). The officers never served Rivas-Lemus with a copy of the immigration detainer form. (ECF No. 15 ¶ 23.)

At approximately 9:00 a.m. on August 17, Rivas-Lemus appeared before “a magistrate [judge] who gave [her] an unsecured PR bond ordering her release” and told her that “she would be released soon because she had no criminal record.” (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 16-17.) Rivas-Lemus then returned to the jail's waiting area. (ECF No. 15 ¶ 17.) At 9:16 a.m., the magistrate judge issued an order instructing the Sheriff to release Rivas-Lemus. (ECF No. 15 ¶ 24.) After she had waited in the jail for thirty to forty-five minutes, an officer “informed [Rivas-Lemus that] they would be booking her into the jail.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 18.)

During booking, officers required Rivas-Lemus to “strip naked, turn around, bend over, and cough” and to urinate into a cup for an “unwanted” pregnancy test. (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 27, 28,29.) Officers then placed Rivas-Lemus “in one large cell, with six smaller room-like cells inside.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 30.) “Each [of the smaller cells] contained three beds[] and one bathroom.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 30.) Although “the space and number of beds suggest[ed] [the cell] was designed to hold about [twelve] to [eighteen] people, there were between [thirty-five] and [forty] women in [Rivas-Lemus's] cell.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 30.) The number of women in the cell made it such “that there was not really room to walk[J” and the only available spot to lay her sleeping mat was “under a table in the room.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 31.)

Rivas-Lemus could not access the toilets in “some of the rooms because inmates ... refused her entry to their room.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 32.) “When [Rivas-Lemus] finally obtained access to a toilet, she was presented with unsanitary conditions that she describe[d] as ‘gunk' on the toilets and the sinks” and no toilet paper. (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 32, 34.) “The toilets and sinks were never cleaned,” and the deputies never brought toilet paper during Rivas-Lemus's detention. (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 33, 35.)

“Throughout her entire time in the jail, [Rivas-Lemus] complain[ed] of stifling and unbearable heat” that, “[t]ogether with the overcrowding ... and unsanitary conditions[,] led to a bad, stinky smell that filled the entire room.” (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 37-38.) There were no windows for a breeze and the single fan used to circulate air through the room was “[o]n occasion,” turned by deputies “to face their window, instead of toward the open room.” (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 39-40.) “At... 5:00 a.m. on August 18[,] a fight broke out in [Rivas-Lemus's] cell over use of one of the bathrooms.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 41.) Rivas-Lemus also reported sexual harassment by an inmate who persistently “touch[ed] [Rivas-Lemus's] backside” and that officers denied her medicine for “a painful headache.” (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 42-44.)

At 3:16 p.m. on August 19, 2019, officers released Rivas-Lemus from the jail after the immigration detainer request “appealed]” to be “lifted.” (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 46-47.) “Since her release, [Rivas-Lemus has] report[ed] experiencing intense anxiety, vertigo, nausea, vomiting, potential hallucinations, post[-]traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and other symptoms she did not experience prior to her arrest and detention.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 49.) She “has received medical treatment to help her manage the trauma,” but “some of [her] symptoms persist today.” (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 51-52.)

Rivas-Lemus claims that “[t]he hardships [she] endured ... in Henrico County Jails are [part of] a years-long, well known, and well-documented problem,” as evidenced by Google reviews and news coverage dating back to 2017 citing issues with overcrowding, hot temperatures, and sewage. (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 53-56.) Sheriff Wade had “presented information about Henrico Jails and overcrowding issues via meetings with the Henrico County Manager and Board of Supervisors [,]” and that members of the Henrico County Board of Supervisors had been “tasked with looking into alternatives to detention” to alleviate overcrowding. (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 60, 63.)

B. Procedural Background

The County filed a Motion to Dismiss Rivas-Lemus's original Complaint, (ECF No. 1), and Rivas-Lemus filed an Amended Complaint as a matter of right, (ECF No. 15).^[6]

Rivas-Lemus brings four Counts against each Defendant in the Amended Complaint:

Count I: Deprivation of Substantive Due Process Rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and VA. CONST, art. 1 § 11. (“Due Process Count.”)

Specifically, she alleges that the Officers “misled [her] regarding the true reason they did not release her as they waited for [immigration] detainer paperwork,” and she was detained “based on a non-mandatory immigration detainer request, which [the Officers] failed to serve on [her], thus depriving [her] of her liberty without due process of law.” (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 72-73.) In addition, she submits that the County “pursued policies, either through municipal inaction or via its influence and collaboration in regular meetings with the other Defendants, that led to [her] detention.” (ECF No. 15¶74.)

Count II: Unlawful Seizure, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourth Amendment, and VA. CONST art. 1, § 10. (“Unreasonable Seizure Count.”)

Rivas-Lemus alleges that the Officers seized her “based on a nonmandatory immigration detainer request, which they failed to serve on [her]” and “conducted an unwanted pregnancy test on [her], thus resulting in an unlawful seizure.” (ECF No. 15 ¶¶ 76-77). She also states that the County “pursued policies, either through municipal inaction or via its influence and collaboration in regular meetings with the other Defendants, that led to [her] detention.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 78.)

Count III: Cruel and Unusual Punishment, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Eighth Amendment, and VA. CONST, art. 1 § 9. (“Cruel and Unusual Punishment Count.”)

Rivas-Lemus asserts that while detained in Henrico County Jail West, Defendants “subjected [her] to humiliating, overcrowded, poorly ventilated, and unsanitary conditions in the jail, thus constituting cruel and unusual punishment.” (ECF No. 15 ¶ 81.) She further contends that “Defendants^[7] have a policy, practice, or custom of

...