W. Va. State Police v. J.H.

Decision Date29 March 2021
Docket NumberNo. 19-0741,19-0741
Citation856 S.E.2d 679
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
Parties The WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE, DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant Below, Petitioner v. J.H., A Minor, BY AND THROUGH His Parent and Next Friend, L.D., Plaintiff Below, Respondent
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Wooton March 29, 2021

Montè L. Williams, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, Mark G. Jeffries, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Petitioner.

Paul G. Taylor, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Attorney for the Respondent.

Jenkins, Chief Justice:

Petitioner, the West Virginia State Police, Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety (the "WVSP"), appeals the circuit court's July 26, 2019 order denying its motion to dismiss the first amended complaint filed by Respondent, J.H.1 , a minor, by and through his parent and next friend, L.D. ("J.H."), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On appeal, the WVSP contends that the circuit court erred in three ways by (1) committing plain error in denying the WVSP's motion to dismiss when the court considered matters outside the pleadings without giving notice to the parties and without converting the WVSP's motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment; (2) denying the WVSP's motion to dismiss the vicarious liability claim on qualified immunity grounds; and (3) denying the WVSP's motion to dismiss the negligent training and supervision claim on qualified immunity grounds. Conversely, J.H. asserts that the circuit court correctly decided the issues by denying in part the WVSP's motion to dismiss and deferring its ruling on the issue of qualified immunity until discovery had been undertaken.

Upon careful review of the briefs, the appendix record, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable legal authority, we find that the circuit court erred by considering matters outside the pleadings and failing to appropriately consider whether qualified immunity applied to shield the WVSP from suit. Accordingly, we reverse the July 26, 2019 order of the circuit court and remand this case to the circuit court to enter an order dismissing the vicarious liability and negligent training and supervision claims against the WVSP and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This appeal arises from an incident on November 19, 2018, in Berkeley County, West Virginia, involving J.H., WVSP Troopers Michael Kennedy and Derek Walker (the "Trooper Defendants"), and Berkeley County Sheriff's Deputies Christopher Merson and Austin Ennis (the "Officer Defendants"). On April 24, 2019, J.H. filed a complaint against the WVSP, the Trooper Defendants, and the Officer Defendants.2 In the complaint, J.H. alleged that all individual law enforcement officials "were acting both within and outside the scope of their duties" when, on November 19, 2018, they "individually and acting together as a mob under color of law, brutally and severely beat and hit ... J.H., a minor, in [and] about the head and body, causing him injuries along with bodily damage, pain[,] and suffering." J.H. further asserted that the Trooper Defendants’ actions were imputed to the WVSP pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior , and that the WVSP was vicariously liable for the Trooper Defendants’ torts. In addition, with respect to the WVSP, J.H. contended that it was negligent and/or reckless in failing to (1) properly train its officers; (2) seek out, negate, and prevent the execution of any policy and agreement "wherein its members physically assault and beat up any person accused of a criminal offense ..., and [ ] [in] fail[ing] to discipline its members who have engaged in such conduct in the past"; and (3) exercise field supervision over its officers. The complaint also alleged that the WVSP was "negligent and/or reckless in other manners of its operation and control." J.H. further averred that the WVSP and the Trooper Defendants violated ten statutes: West Virginia Code sections 15-2-12(b)(1),3 15-2-14,4 15-2-13(a),5 61-2-9,6 61-5-16,7 61-5-28,8 61-6-7,9 61-6-12,10 61-6-21,11 and 61-10-31.12 The violation of these statutes, according to J.H., gave rise to a cause of action under West Virginia Code section 55-7-9 (eff. 1923), which provides that "[a]ny person injured by the violation of any statute may recover from the offender such damages as he may sustain by reason of the violation, although a penalty or forfeiture for such violation be thereby imposed, unless the same be expressly mentioned to be in lieu of such damages." The claims against the Officer Defendants were similar to those asserted against the Trooper Defendants.

Following the filing of the complaint, the Trooper Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. The Trooper Defendants each argued that the statutes cited by J.H. in his complaint did not create private causes of action and that each Trooper Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. J.H. filed a response in opposition to Trooper Walker's motion to dismiss, but it does not appear from the record that he responded to Trooper Kennedy's motion to dismiss.

During this time, J.H. filed his First Amended Complaint ("amended complaint") which was almost identical to the original complaint, with two notable exceptions. First, J.H. asserted that not only were the negligent acts of the Trooper Defendants and the Officer Defendants the proximate cause of his injuries, but also that they "were done with malicious purpose, in bad faith, and were reckless." Second, J.H. alleged that all the Defendants, generally, "negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress" on him.

By separate orders that included identical findings, the circuit court denied the motions to dismiss, in part, and deferred ruling on qualified immunity.13 The circuit court found that "[e]ven accepting the analysis of the statutes involved, the [Trooper Defendants’] motion[s] fall[ ] well short of demonstrating ‘beyond doubt’ that the Plaintiff can prove no facts which would entitle him to relief." With respect to qualified immunity, the circuit court further found that

[b]ased solely on the amended complaint ... there is an absence of well-pleaded facts to allow the court to determine whether the physical actions visited upon J.H. [were] objectively reasonable force to effect an arrest or a gratuitous infliction of pain on a recalcitrant prisoner. A complaint should be a short, plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8, Rules of Civil Procedure. It is plain enough from the pleading now before the court that the Plaintiff claims he was unlawfully beaten incident to an arrest.
In a case where a defendant may be entitled to qualified immunity, the Plaintiff is burdened to allege specific facts which would justify a finding that the government official knew or reasonably should have known that his actions violated clearly established law. An allegation of injury during the course of an arrest is not sufficient to particularly plead facts overcoming the immunity asserted by the Defendant. Qualified immunity, however, is not a circumstance under which Rule 9, Rules of Civil Procedure, requires specific pleading.

Nevertheless, the circuit court "believe[d] the best course of action [was] to permit discovery to proceed to permit discovery sufficient to determine whether facts exist which would demonstrate a public officials [sic ] violation of a clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known." The circuit court also noted that these "matters are difficult to determine on a motion filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Rules of Civil Procedure."

The WVSP moved to dismiss J.H.’s first amended complaint, on July 18, 2019, arguing that it could not be held vicariously liable for the Trooper Defendants’ torts where J.H. failed to plead a viable tort claim against the Trooper Defendants and where J.H. pled that the Trooper Defendants were acting outside the scope of their employment. The WVSP further asserted that the Trooper Defendants were "entitled to qualified immunity," and that it could not be held vicariously liable for their alleged actions. The WVSP also contended that it was entitled to qualified immunity from J.H.’s negligent training and supervision claim given his failure to plead that the WVSP acted fraudulently, oppressively, or maliciously, or that it violated a clearly established law or right in performing its discretionary functions. Finally, the WVSP argued that J.H. failed to state a direct claim of negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress because no facts showed that the WVSP caused him emotional distress or, alternatively, because it was qualifiedly immune from that claim in the absence of an allegation that the WVSP acted fraudulently, oppressively, or maliciously, or in violation of a clearly established law or right. J.H. filed a response in opposition arguing that the circuit court had already addressed these or similar issues in its previous orders denying the Trooper Defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment.

On July 26, 2019, the circuit court denied the WVSP's motion to dismiss. The circuit court found that the WVSP failed

to address that the gist of [J.H.’s] case is a battery upon [J.H.] who then seeks additionally to base his recovery on statutes which may or may not provide a private right of relief.... Assuming without deciding that the [WVSP] is correct on this point, that hardly decides ... whether the Plaintiff can make a case for battery.... The [WVSP's] brief simply does not explain why "beat[ing]" or "hit[ting]" the Plaintiff, as alleged in the First Amended Complaint would not suffice to establish a right of recovery if proved to the satisfaction
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Gable v. Gable
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 1 de junho de 2021
    ...... to Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The circuit court granted the defendant's motion and ... See Syl. pt. 3, W. Va. State Police v. J.H. , ––– W. Va. ––––, 856 S.E.2d 679 (2021). The Court went on to conclude, ......
  • C.C. v. Harrison Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 17 de junho de 2021
    ...standard in all civil cases, not just those "where immunities are implicated." W. Va. State Police, Dep't of Mil. Affs. and Pub. Safety v. J.H. , 244 W. Va. 720, 736–37, 856 S.E.2d 679, 695-96 (2021) (citations omitted); Hutchison v. City of Huntington , 198 W. Va. 139, 149-50, 479 S.E.2d 6......
  • W.Va. Div. of Corr. & Rehab. v. Robbins
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 9 de junho de 2023
    ...knew of the substantial risk of harm posed to Robbins by exposure to other inmates-a different kettle of fish from the amended complaint in J.H., which was "barebones . . . [with] facts asserted . . . explaining in even a skeletal way . . . the circumstances" of the plaintiff's arrest.[50] ......
  • Judy v. E. W. Va. Cmty. & Technical Coll.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 25 de abril de 2022
    ...W. Va. 273, 281, 852 S.E.2d 773, 781 (2020) (emphasis in original). See also W. Virginia State Police, Dep't of Mil. Affs. & Pub. Safety v. J.H. by & through L.D. , 244 W. Va. 720, 736, 856 S.E.2d 679, 695 (2021) ("[T]his Court consistently has found that matters involving qualified immunit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT