Aliff v. W. Va. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth.

KENNETH ALIFF, Plaintiff, v. WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL ANDCORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-13513

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

September 26, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Austin Burke and Travis Crook. (ECF Nos. 7 and 14.) For the reasons discussed herein, each motion is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's federal claims. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's federal claims, DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims, and REMANDS this matter to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia for further proceedings.

I. Background

This case arises from a sweep for contraband conducted by officials at the Southern Regional Jail in the spring of 2014. Based on the alleged illegal conduct of the Defendants—both named and unnamed—during and after the sweep, Plaintiff alleges violations of the federal constitution, the West Virginia state constitution, West Virginia regulations, and West Virginia state tort law. Although Plaintiff's pleading is not a model of clarity or organization, it is clear that his federal claims are based on Defendants' excessive use of force. He also asserts a grab bag of due process and conspiracy arguments based on Defendants' conduct during the sweep and subsequent efforts to cover up their alleged wrongdoing. As will be described, Plaintiff's pleading is long on legal conclusions and citations to internal prison policy and state legislative rules, but very short on factual allegations asserting how any of his federal constitutional rights were actually violated.

Plaintiff originally filed his complaint in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on August 21, 2015. On September 8, 2015, Defendant Burke filed a notice of removal invoking this Court's "arising under" jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, based on Plaintiff's federal constitutional claims, and inviting this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his pendent state law claims. (ECF No. 1.) Following removal, Defendants Burke and Crook filed motions to dismiss against the original complaint, primarily arguing that the complaint was insufficiently pled and that they are entitled to qualified immunity.¹ (See ECF Nos. 7 and 14.) On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to identify additional wrongful conduct by Defendants discovered through "[r]ecent discovery in a parallel case." (ECF No. 40.) The Court granted that motion on July 21, 2016. (ECF No. 49). Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), originally filed as an exhibit to the motion to amend, was docketed anddeemed filed that same day. (ECF No. 50.) While each Defendant has filed an answer, none have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Generally, an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading and renders it legally inoperative. See Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001). As such, the normal course would be to deny the motions challenging the sufficiency of an inoperative complaint as moot. However, dismissal is not necessary where, as here, the challenged portions of the original complaint are reproduced in the amended complaint and the amended complaint suffers from the same defects identified in the motion to dismiss. See O'Boyle v. Superior Moving & Storage, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:09-cv-00166, 2009 WL 2496933, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 13, 2009); 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2011) ("If some of the defects raised in the original motion remain in the new pleading, the court simply may consider the motion as being addressed to the amended pleading. To hold otherwise would be to exalt form over substance."). Here, the amendments to Plaintiff's original complaint detail Defendants' alleged cover-up effort and provide several allegations that Defendants failed to follow internal prison policy in conducting the sweep. They do not, however, set forth any additional factual allegations of actual conduct during that sweep or other illegal actions directed at Plaintiff personally, and thus do not moot the arguments raised in the pending motions to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court will consider the pending motions to dismiss with respect to the Amended Complaint.

According to the Amended Complaint, the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority ("RJCFA") employs "Special Response Teams," abbreviated by Plaintiff as "SRT," for the purpose of "searching inmates [sic] cells for contraband." (ECF No. 50 ¶ 3.) In"the Spring of 2014," "on or about May 21-24," RJCFA conducted a "raid or training session" using an SRT comprised of Defendants Burke, Crook, and Simons, as well as other individuals designated by Plaintiff as "John Doe Correctional Officers/Special Response Team Members." (Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 11.) Although Plaintiff alleges that the RJCFA conducted this operation, he also alleges that the SRT "entered the jail of its own volition and not at the specific request of the jail administrator." (Id. ¶ 11.) While the Amended Complaint focuses on Defendants' abstract non-compliance with prison policies and procedures and West Virginia regulations governing prison operation, it provides almost no description of Defendants' actual conduct during the raid or how that conduct violated the cited provisions of law or caused Plaintiff any harm.

Plaintiff alleges that the officers used "unreasonable and excessive force in carrying out their duties," "unnecessarily and unreasonably [shot] plaintiff . . . with a bean bag," "unnecessarily us[ed] threats of physical force and violence," and generically "violat[ed]" state regulations governing the use of force against inmates and providing for a prison grievance procedure. (Id. ¶¶ 12(1)-12(4).) Most specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "used verbal threats of violence" and shot "plaintiff in the leg with a gun that propels bean bags," (ECF No. 50 ¶ 21), and that they "withheld proper medical care and treatment," (id.), "ignored grievances filed by plaintiff and other inmates regarding the conduct of the SRT," (id. ¶ 22), "confiscated and destroyed plaintiff's personal property," (id. ¶ 44), and "denied [Plaintiff] the use of a bed mattress for an extended period of time," (id.). According to Plaintiff, Defendants singled out a set of "problem inmates" for harsher punishment "through the use of flash bang grenades and the deprivation of personal property." (Id. ¶ 12(18).) Plaintiff does not allege that he was listed as a problem inmate or personally singled out for special punishment.

Following the raid, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and most directly Burke, engaged in a large-scale cover-up operation to conceal these actions. This alleged cover-up involved the destruction and concealment of evidence, the disregard of internal prison policy, the threatening of witnesses, and the discharge of one correctional officer for "disseminat[ing] . . . information to the Governor's office" regarding "the illegal conduct at the Southern Regional Jail." (Id. ¶¶12(6)-12(13), 12(20), 12(23)-12(25).) Unlike the allegations regarding the raid itself, these allegations are relatively specific and point to several instances of actual conduct by Southern Regional Jail officials that allegedly hindered investigation into the raid's execution.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that prior to the sweep, Defendants—and Burke in particular—counseled the SRT members to disregard internal prison procedures designed "to ensure that inmates are not subjected to improper treatment and excessive force." (Id. ¶¶ 12(15)-12(18).) Although Plaintiff argues that this failure to follow policy resulted in his civil rights being violated when he was "shot without just cause," he does not identify any specific conduct by any individual that actually violated the procedures at issue or resulted in his shooting being unreasonable or without cause. The only conduct alleged is that "Defendants" shot Plaintiff in the leg with a beanbag gun. There is nothing to indicate why such shooting was unjustified or otherwise not in compliance with the provisions of law Plaintiff alleges were violated.

On the basis of these allegations Plaintiff asserts ten claims for relief. Although Plaintiff makes little effort to identify the substantive sources of law that support his claims, it is clear that Counts I, II, V, VI, and X are state tort law claims based on assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent supervision/training/testing, and intentional spoliation. Count IX is generically labelled "conspiracy," and could potentially support an actionunder either federal or state law. To the extent it purports to state a federal conspiracy claim, it will be addressed below. Counts VII and VIII are labeled "reckless conduct/willful wanton conduct" and "malicious conduct," respectively, and appear to be attempts to state independent claims for punitive damages. To that extent, it is well-recognized that punitive damages are "a form of relief" and that "West Virginia law does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages." Miller v. Carelink Health Plans, Inc. 82 F. Supp. 2d 574, 579 n.6 (S.D. W. Va. 2000) (citing Cook v. Heck's Inc., 342 S.E.2d 453, 461 n.3 (W. Va. 1986)). In any case, these counts do not state any cognizable federal cause of action.

Plaintiff's federal claims appear in Counts III and IV. The former alleges violations of the federal constitution, the state constitution, and state regulations, while the latter is labeled "Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Section 1983 is not a source of substantive rights but merely a mechanism for a plaintiff to vindicate rights elsewhere guaranteed by federal law. Accordingly, the Court construes Counts III...