State v. Ballard

895 S.E.2d 159

STATE of West Virginia EX REL. WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY-GENERAL, MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT; and Nathan R. Lyle, in His Individual Capacity, and in His Capacity as an Employee of the West Virginia Attorney-General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Petitioners,

v.The Honorable Kenneth D. BALLARD, Judge of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County; and Hisel Bailey, Respondents.

West Virginia Attorney-General, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit; and Nathan R. Lyle, in His Individual Capacity, and in His Capacity as an Employee of the West Virginia Attorney-General, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Defendants Below, Petitioners,

v.Hisel Bailey, Plaintiff Below, Respondent.

No. 22-779, No. 22-781

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: September 13, 2023

Filed: November 9, 2023

Syllabus by the Court

1. "Because Title 42, U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1979) does not create substantive rights, but rather provides a remedy for pre-existing rights, all claims under this section must allege a specific violation of the constitution or ‘laws’ of the United States. [To] recover damages under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) [the] conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Syllabus point 4, Hutchison v. City of Huntington, 198 W. Va. 139, 479 S.E.2d 649 (1996).

2. "A government-official defendant can be held liable only for his or her own misconduct. Therefore, to succeed on a claim of an alleged constitutional violation under United States Code title 42, section 1983, a plaintiff must prove that each government-official defendant, through that official’s own individual actions, has personally and directly violated the Constitution, and that such violation caused or contributed to the plaintiffs injuries." Syllabus point 3, Vinson v. Butcher, 244 W. Va. 144, 851 S.E.2d 807 (2020).

3. "A circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss that is predicated on qualified immunity is an interlocutory ruling which is subject to immediate appeal under the ‘collateral order’ doctrine." Syllabus point 1, West Virginia Board of Education v. Marple, 236 W. Va. 654, 783 S.E.2d 75 (2015).

4. "To the extent that governmental acts or omissions which give rise to a cause of action fall within the category of discretionary functions, a reviewing court must determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that such acts or omissions are in violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws of which a reasonable person would have known or are otherwise fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive in accordance with State v. Chase Securities, Inc., 188 W. Va. 356, 424 S.E.2d 591 (1992). In absence of such a showing, both the State and its officials or employees charged with such acts or omissions are immune from liability." Syllabus point 11, West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority v. A.B., 234 W. Va. 492, 766 S.E.2d 751 (2014).

5. "If the plaintiff identifies a clearly established right or law which has been violated by the acts or omissions of the State, its agencies, officials, or employees, or can otherwise identify fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive acts committed by such official or employee, the court must determine whether such acts or omissions were within the scope of the public official or employee’s duties, authority, and/or employment. To the extent that such official or employee is determined to have been acting outside of the scope of his duties, authority, and/or employment, the State and/or its agencies are immune from vicarious liability, but the public employee or official is not entitled to immunity in accordance with State v. Chase Securities, Inc., 188 W. Va. 356, 424 S.E.2d 591 (1992) and its progeny. If the public official or employee was acting within the scope of his duties, authority, and/or employment, the State and/or its agencies may be held liable for such acts or omissions under the doctrine of respondeat superior along with the public official or employee." Syllabus point 12, West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority v. A.B., 234 W. Va. 492, 766 S.E.2d 751 (2014).

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, The Honorable Kenneth D. Ballard, Judge, Civil Action No. 22-C-145

Michael D. Dunham, Esq., Caleb B. David, Esq., Tyler L. Rittenhouse, Esq., Shuman McCuskey Slicer PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Petitioners

John J. Brewster, Esq., Scott H. Kaminski, Esq., Ray, Winton & Kelley, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Respondent Hisel Bailey

BUNN, Justice:

In these consolidated proceedings, the West Virginia Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit ("MFCU") and Nathan R. Lyle, a MFCU investigator, seek review of the circuit court’s denial of their motion to dismiss certain claims alleged in a civil rights action brought by Mr. Hisel Bailey. In case number 22-779, MFCU and Mr. Lyle (collectively "Petitioners") seek a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from enforcing the part of its order finding that Mr. Bailey could maintain 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against both MFCU and Mr. Lyle. They further seek to prevent the circuit court from allowing Mr. Bailey to go forward with a whistle-blower claim against Mr. Lyle. We grant the requested writ of prohibition. MFCU, a state agency, and Mr. Lyle in his official capacity, may not be subjected to § 1983 claims. Furthermore, Mr. Bailey’s whistle-blower claim is unsustainable because Mr. Lyle had no authority to make decisions affecting Mr. Bailey’s employment and, therefore, was not his employer.

In case number 22-781, Petitioners appeal the circuit court’s decision denying them qualified immunity from Mr. Bailey’s § 1983 claims for unreasonable seizure of the person against Mr. Lyle. These claims are based on two grounds: (1) an alleged violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966); and (2) Mr. Bailey’s potential loss of liberty from an allegedly false report Mr. Lyle submitted to the Cabell County prosecuting attorney. Petitioners also appeal the circuit court's rulings denying them qualified and prosecutorial immunity from Mr. Bailey’s claim of malicious prosecution. A § 1983 claim may not, as a matter of law, be founded on a Miranda violation, and the mere risk of a loss of liberty is insufficient to establish seizure of the person. Therefore, Mr. Lyle is entitled to qualified immunity from Mr. Bailey’s § 1983 claims, and the circuit court erred by concluding otherwise. As to Mr. Bailey’s malicious prosecution claim, we find that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to meet the required heightened pleading standard to overcome MFCU’s and Mr. Lyle’s qualified immunity, and the circuit court additionally failed to address whether Mr. Lyle was acting within the scope of his employment—an analysis necessary to determine MFCU’s entitlement to qualified immunity for any vicarious liability for Mr. Lyle’s alleged conduct. Therefore, additional proceedings before the circuit court are required. Finally, the circuit court correctly found Petitioners are not entitled to prosecutorial immunity. The circuit court’s order is affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and this case is remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

HISTORY¹

Mr. Bailey is a registered nurse. At the time of the incident underlying these proceedings, he had been employed by Mildred Mitchell-Bateman Hospital ("MMBH") for about six years.² MMBH is a psychiatric facility operated by the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources ("DHHR").

Mr. Bailey alleges that on January 7, 2019, he and Krista Menchaca, a health services worker, were walking a group of MMBH patients to the cafeteria for dinner. Among them was M.C., a long-term patient of MMBH who had a known history of self-harm and self-mutilation, which Mr. Bailey had witnessed at times. On the way to the cafeteria, M.C. expressed a desire to beat and kill his mother.³ He resisted attempts by Mr. Bailey and Ms. Menchaca to redirect his attention. M.C.’s conduct escalated, and he punched a wall causing his knuckles to bleed. Expressing pleasure at the sight of his own blood, M.C. threatened to bite himself and raised his arm toward his mouth. Mr. Bailey tried to keep M.C. from biting himself, and a struggle ensued. M.C. has an unsteady gate due to cerebral palsy, so both men fell to the floor where M.C. bit, struck, and kicked Mr. Bailey, and forcefully grabbed his testicles. Ms. Menchaca called for assistance, and four other MMBH employees arrived and gained control over M.C. Mr. Bailey then escorted M.C. back to his unit at MMBH where staff examined MC, found a small bump and small cut over his eyebrow, and placed a bandage on the cut.

On January 11, 2019, Michelle Woomer, an employee of Legal Aid of West Virginia ("LAWV"), was making rounds at MMBH and observed bruising around M.C.’s eye. She asked M.C. about the bruise. He first stated that Mr. Bailey had thrown him against a wall and banged his head during the January 7 event. Later, M.C. described that Mr. Bailey threw him to the floor and banged his head during the episode. M.C. also explained that the incident was witnessed by another patient, L.M. Ms. Woomer conducted an initial investigation of the event, which Mr. Bailey claims was unauthorized insofar as Ms. Woomer had not yet been officially assigned to investigate. As part of her initial investigation, Ms. Woomer read the nursing notes, including a report by Mr. Bailey, and viewed a security video of the struggle, which is of poor quality⁴ and has no sound. John Koeber and Olivia Shields, employees of MMBH; MMBH CEO Craig Richards; and LAWV employee Teri Stone also viewed the video footage. Ms. Woomer then filed a referral...