W. Va. Div. of Corr. & Rehab. v. Robbins

248 W.Va. 515

889 S.E.2d 88

WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, Defendant Below, Petitioner, v. Damein ROBBINS, Plaintiff Below, Respondent.

Isaiah Blancarte & Bryon Whetzel, Defendants Below, Petitioners, v. Damein Robbins, Plaintiff Below, Respondent.

No. 21-0905

No. 21-0906

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: January 31, 2023

Filed: June 9, 2023

Matthew R. Whitler, Esq., PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioner, West Virginia Department of Corrections, & Rehabilitation

Michael D. Dunham, Esq., Kathryn V. McCann Slaughter, Esq., Shuman McCuskey Slicer PLLC, Winchester, Virginia Counsel for Petitioners, Isaiah Blancarte & Bryon Whetzel

J. Daniel Kirkland, Esq., Gregory A. Bailey, Esq., Arnold & Bailey, PLLC, Charles Town, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent, Damein Robbins

WALKER, Chief Justice:

Respondent Damein Robbins spent forty-eight hours in the Potomac Highlands Regional Jail in Augusta, West Virginia, in July 2018. He alleges that during that time, fellow inmates sexually assaulted him, sodomized him, forced him to eat feces and drink urine, threatened to kill him, and—during the assault—paraded him through a housing pod in full view of at least one corrections officer. Robbins sued corrections officers Bryon Whetzel and Isaiah Blancarte (the Officers) and West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOC) to recover for the injuries he claims to have incurred during those forty-eight hours, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The Officers and DOC claimed qualified immunity from Robbins's claims and moved to dismiss the complaint. The circuit court denied those motions, and Petitioners now appeal that ruling via the collateral order doctrine.

We affirm in part and reverse in part the circuit court's order. First, we affirm that part of the order denying the Officers’ motions to dismiss. Second, we reverse that part of the order denying DOC's motion to dismiss Robbins's negligent training and supervision claim. Third, as to that part of the order denying DOC's motion to dismiss Robbins's vicarious liability claim, we affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Robbins was committed to the Potomac Highlands Regional Jail on July 20, 2018, for forty-eight hours. Robbins claims that within earshot of other inmates, an unnamed correctional officer elicited from Robbins that he was a sex offender, violating the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). ¹ According to Robbins, this substantially increased the possibility that other inmates would harm him. Robbins asserts that other inmates in the misdemeanor pod threatened him, so he asked to be transferred. Robbins claims that jail officials moved him to an interview room, then to felony pod A-6, a segregated housing unit. Robbins alleges that he was told that he would not be allowed out of his cell, nor would other inmates be allowed in it.

Robbins claims that early in the morning of July 22, 2018, Officer Byron Whetzel permitted three inmate-occupants of felony pod A-6 to enter Robbins's cell. The inmates closed the cell door behind them, covered the cell door window and the exterior window with paper, then turned off the lights. According to Robbins, the inmates then began to sexually assault him. Robbins claims that he was (1) sodomized with a broom handle; (2) forced to drink urine; (3) forced to eat feces; (4) threatened with a "makeshift weapon," which the assailants also used to cut off his hair; (5) told "this is what happens to sex offenders;" (6) paraded by his assailants throughout felony pod A-6 to " ‘show off’ " his condition and humiliate him; and (7) threatened with death should he tell anyone of the assault. Robbins claims that Whetzel saw him being "show[n] off" but did not intervene. Robbins alleges that Officer Isaiah Blancarte was the "rover" in felony pod A-6 during the assault, and that he and Whetzel permitted inmates to roam around the pod together and enter his cell. ²

Robbins was processed out of the jail late in the afternoon of July 22, 2018. He said nothing when other corrections officers inquired about his injuries, he alleges, because his assailants threatened to kill him should he report the assault. Robbins's wife collected him from the jail then took him to the hospital in Romney, West Virginia. Hours later, Robbins was transferred to a trauma ward at Winchester Medical Center. Robbins alleges that he was hospitalized until July 25, 2018. He claims that his ribs were broken and his orbital bone shattered in the assault. ³

In July 2020, Robbins sued two "John Doe" corrections officers and the DOC. ⁴ He asserted three claims against the John Does: (Count I) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim predicated on the alleged violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (deliberate indifference); (Count II) failure to protect; ⁵ and (Count III) negligent infliction of emotional distress. He brought two claims against DOC: (Count IV) failure to train and adequately supervise and (Count V ⁶ ) vicarious liability for the violation of his clearly established rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its counterpart in the West Virginia Constitution, as well as the "fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive" acts of John Doe I and II. Finally, Robbins sought attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (Count VI). Robbins amended his complaint in October 2020, dropped the John Doe monikers, and named Blancarte and Whetzel as defendants in their personal and official capacities.

In December 2020, Blancarte and Whetzel filed motions under West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Robbins's claims, arguing qualified immunity. DOC moved to dismiss Robbins's claims against it the next month. DOC asserted that it was qualifiedly immune from Robbins's failure-to-train-and-adequately-supervise claim and his claim for vicarious liability. DOC also argued that Robbins could not collect attorneys’ fees from it under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

The circuit court denied the motions to dismiss in October 2021. ⁷ The court found that Robbins had been in the care and custody of DOC at relevant times, and that Blancarte and Whetzel acted under the color of law as corrections officers employed by the DOC. The court went on to find that the alleged acts and omissions of Blancarte, Whetzel, and DOC were discretionary. Next, the court found that Robbins had identified a clearly-established constitutional right—freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, guaranteed under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court expressly found that, "with regard to the heightened pleading requirement stated above (and asserted by the Defendants as a basis for dismissing Plaintiff's claims), that the Plaintiff has alleged in the Amended Complaint sufficient ‘particularized’ facts to satisfy such requirement on the matter of a clearly established right in this instance and at this stage of the proceedings." ⁸

The court also denied DOC's motion to dismiss Robbins's vicarious liability claim. The court recognized that DOC cannot be held vicariously liable for its employees’ alleged violations of Robbins's Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Still, the court concluded that, if taken as true, the allegations in the amended complaint demonstrated that the Officers’ acts or omissions had occurred within the scope of their employment with DOC so that dismissal of the vicarious liability claim was inappropriate under Rule 12(b)(6). ⁹

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 8 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Negligence may be averred generally, as may "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person." ¹⁰ Courts are to construe "[a]ll pleadings ... as to do substantial justice." ¹¹ Even so, Rules 8 and 9(b) do not countenance sloppy pleading; "a plaintiff may not fumble around searching for a meritorious claim within the elastic boundaries of a barebones complaint." ¹² Instead, they require that "[e]ach averment of a pleading ... be simple, concise, and direct," ¹³ so that "a circuit court or an opposing party [may] understand whether a valid claim is alleged and, if so, what it is." ¹⁴ In other words, a complaint "must set forth enough information to outline the elements of a claim or permit inferences to be drawn that these elements exist." ¹⁵

Petitioners appeal from the circuit court's denial of their motions to dismiss on the grounds that they are qualifiedly immune from Robbins's claims. "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." ¹⁶ " ‘When a party ... assigns as error a circuit court's denial of a motion to dismiss, the circuit court's disposition of the motion to dismiss will be reviewed de novo. ’ " ¹⁷ De novo means that this Court " ‘give[s] a new, complete and unqualified review to the parties’ arguments and the record before the circuit court’ " ¹⁸ under the same standard employed by the circuit court: " ‘[t]he trial court, in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ " ¹⁹ And, like the circuit court, we must construe the amended complaint and the factual allegations in it in the light most favorable to Robbins. ²⁰

Under West Virginia law, immunities "are more than a defense to a suit in that they grant governmental bodies and public officials the right not to be subject to the burden of trial at all." ²¹ A State agency or public official is denied that right irrevocably if required to try a claim from...