Darden v. Cooper

ERIC DARDEN, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNOR ROY A. COOPER, III, et al., Defendants.

1:19cv1050

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

September 14, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge.

This lawsuit arises out of the murder of three North Carolina prison employees at the hands of four inmates during a failed attempt to escape Pasquotank Correctional Institution ("PCI") in October 2017. Plaintiffs represent the decedents' estates and claim multiple violations of their Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by seventeen named Defendants across two state agencies and the state's executive branch: North Carolina Governor Roy A. Cooper, III; The North Carolina Department of Public Safety ("DPS") and employees Erik A. Hooks, Frank L. Perry, Kenneth Lassiter, George Solomon, W. David Guice, Felix Taylor, Colbert Respass, Fay D. Lassiter, Nicole E. Sullivan, Annie Harvey, Joseph Harrell, and Marquis Betz, all in their individual and official capacities; and Correction Enterprises ("CE") and employees Karen Brown and Robert Leon, in their individual and official capacities.

Before the court is Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (2), and (6). (Doc. 17.) Plaintiffs responded in opposition and suggested that granting leave to file a second amended complaint would be more appropriate than granting dismissal. (See Doc. 20 at 4.) However, Plaintiffs have not filed for leave to amend. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The allegations, taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, show the following:

Decedents Veronica Darden, Wendy Shannon, and Justin Smith were employed at PCI. (Doc. 10 ¶ 3.) On October 12, 2017, at least twelve close-custody prisoners and eighteen medium-custody prisoners were working in a sewing plant operated by CE, located within the perimeter fence of PCI. (Id. ¶ 4.) The prisoners who worked in the plant were violent and had previously engaged in serious misconduct. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 39(lvii-lix).) In contravention of DPS and CE policy, and due to underlying staffing shortages, correctional supervisors charged Smith with guarding all thirty of the inmates in the plant alone. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 5.) On that day, four violent inmates gained unfettered access to deadly tools and closed, unguarded hallways within the plant and attempted to escape. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5.) The four inmates attacked Darden, Shannon,Smith, and others with claw hammers and scissors. (Id. ¶ 5.) Due to ineffective security policies, monitoring, training, and equipment, the attack was allowed to continue for over twenty minutes before help arrived. (Id. ¶ 6.) Darden, Shannon, and Smith ultimately died of the injuries inflicted upon them. (Id.) At the time of the attack, the three guards were locked inside the plant. (Id. ¶ 5.)

Plaintiffs charge that institutional failures contributed to the danger for the inmates' violent escape attempt. (Id. ¶ 8.) These failures include poor hiring and retention practices; severe understaffing; improper training; lack of safety equipment; lax, unenforced, and ineffective safety and security procedures; and inadequate supervision of staff and inmates. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 8, 39.)

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. (8)(a)(2). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).¹ A claim is plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court "must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint," Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiff's favor. Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir. 1997). "Rule 12(b)(6) protects against meritless litigation by requiring sufficient factual allegation 'to raise a right to relief above the speculative level' so as to 'nudge[] the[] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.'" Sauers v. Winston-Salem/Forsyth Cty. Bd. Of Educ., 179 F. Supp. 3d 544, 550 (M.D.N.C. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "[T]he complaint must 'state[] a plausible claim for relief' that permit[s] the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct based upon 'its judicial experience and common sense.'" Coleman v. Md. Ct. App., 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010) (alterations in original) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). Thus, mere legal conclusion are not accepted astrue, and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

B. Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity

Defendants argue they are entitled to sovereign immunity for the claims against DPS, CE, and named Defendants in their official capacities. (Doc. 18 at 7-9.) Plaintiffs respond that it is inappropriate to consider sovereign immunity in a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 20 at 6.) Plaintiffs further argue that Defendants are not eligible to plead sovereign immunity because the State of North Carolina is not a party to this case. (Id.) Both of Plaintiffs' arguments fail.

The Eleventh Amendment provides that "[t]he judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Supreme Court has held that "an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State." Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974). A suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the official's office and is therefore a suit against the state itself. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).

Agencies, instrumentalities, and arms of the state receive the same protection as the state itself. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997). The touchstone for considering an entity as an agency of the state is whether judgments rendered against that entity would be paid from the state's treasury. Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 48-50 (1994). "Given the State's unique dignitary interest in avoiding suit, . . . Eleventh Amendment immunity questions [should be resolved] as soon as possible after the State asserts immunity." Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 482 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)) (resolving questions of sovereign immunity on motion to dismiss).

In the present cause of action, Plaintiffs name two North Carolina agencies as parties to the litigation: NC DPS and CE. Both are entitled to sovereign immunity. DPS is an agency of the State of North Carolina that is funded by the North Carolina treasury. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-601 (2020); see also Biggs v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 953 F.3d 236, 241 (4th Cir. 2020) (finding DPS to be an agency of the state and entitled to sovereign immunity). CE, a subdivision of DPS, is also an agency of the State of North Carolina whose funds are held by the state treasury. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 148-128, 130 (2020) (establishing CE as a subdivision of DPS and explaining "[a]ll revenues . . . produced by Correction Enterprises shall be deposited with the StateTreasurer"); see also Candillo v. N.C. Dep't of Corr., 199 F. Supp. 2d 342, 349 (M.D.N.C. 2002) (applying North Carolina's sovereign immunity to a subdivision of a state agency). Any judgment against either DPS or CE would be paid from the state treasury, such that classification as state agencies is appropriate. As agencies of North Carolina, both DPS and CE are entitled to sovereign immunity. See Biggs, 953 F.3d at 241.

Plaintiffs also name fifteen state employees in their official capacities as parties to this litigation. Thirteen of these employees worked at DPS during or leading up to October 2017. (Doc. 10 ¶¶ 13-26.) The other two named employees worked at CE in October 2017. (Id. ¶¶ 32, 33.) Each of these Defendants was named in his or her official capacity as an employee of DPS or CE. As a suit against an individual in his official capacity is a suit against the state itself, these employees are entitled to sovereign immunity to the extent the claims against them are made in their official capacities. Will, 491 U.S. at 71; Fauconier v. Clarke, 966 F.3d 265, 279-80 (4th Cir. 2020).

There are three exceptions to sovereign immunity: congressional abrogation, waiver, and Ex parte Young. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55, 59 (1996); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). None of these exceptions applies here. First, it is well-established that Congress did not abrogatesovereign immunity through the enactment of § 1983. Will, 491 U.S. at 66. Second, Defendants have not taken — nor do Plaintiffs allege — any actions that could constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity. In fact, Defendants have asserted their sovereign immunity at their first opportunity. (See Doc. 17.) Lastly, Ex parte Young, which holds that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit against a state official for prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 159-60, Lynn v. West, ...