Woodman v. Vermont State Police
Filing
10
OPINION and ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss but the Vermont Attorney General is ORDERED to provide the names of the officers involved within 30 days. Plaintiff will then be allowed 30 days to file and Amended Complaint. Signed by District Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 11/6/2012. (kak)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
Jamie Woodman,
Plaintiff,
v.
Vermont State Police
(St. Johnsbury),
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:12-cv-43-jgm
OPINION AND ORDER
(Doc. 9)
Plaintiff Jamie Woodman, a Vermont inmate proceeding pro se,
bring this action claiming two Vermont State Police officers
allowed him to be bitten by a police dog after he had already
surrendered.
Defendant Vermont State Police now moves to dismiss
on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
For the reasons set
forth below, the motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED, but the
Office of the Vermont Attorney General is ORDERED to provide the
names of the officers involved within 30 days.
Woodman will then
be allowed 30 days in which to file an Amended Complaint.
Factual Background
For purposes of the pending motion to dismiss, the facts
alleged in the Complaint will be accepted as true.
Woodman
claims on July 28, 2010, he fled from police in St. Johnsbury,
Vermont.
While fleeing, he jumped into a river and cut his right
calf muscle on a discarded bicycle.
Woodman decided to risk
infection and continue his efforts to escape, reasoning he could
clean the wound once he was clear of his pursuers.
Woodman proceeded up the embankment of the river and found a
hiding spot near a small pump house.
He subsequently saw a State
Police cruiser and heard a police dog nearby.
At this point,
cold and wet and having bled from his wound for over two hours,
Woodman decided to surrender.
As he states in his Complaint,
When the two officers walked around the building I
crouched down in an area that was wide open and in the
back corner of this structure. One officer approached
me, and the other with the dog moved out in a larger
arc sweeping for me. At this time the dog was barking
and jumping around energetically. The first officer
noticed me and told me to “freeze.” I told him that I
was “done” and that “they got me.”
(Doc. 4 at 5.)
Woodman claims the officer ordered him to lie on
his stomach with his hands behind his back.
He complied, and the
officer cuffed him.
The second officer was in control of the police dog.
Woodman claims this officer came within five or six feet of him
“with the dog going absolutely crazy.”
Id. at 6.
The first
officer then proceeded to remove Woodman’s left shoe.
When
Woodman “became agitated” and asked the officer what he was
doing, the officer explained that he was “‘getting the dog off
your scent.’”
Id.
Woodman felt that he was being “toyed with,”
concedes he called the officer “a ‘maggot,’” and told the officer
to replace his shoe.
The officer allegedly knelt down next to
Woodman and said “‘you’ll never run from me again.’” He then took
2
the shoe from the dog and placed it on Woodman’s foot, whereupon
the dog continued to chew on the shoe.
Id.
Woodman claims initially his foot was protected by the
rubber sole and tongue of the shoe.
When he tried to move his
foot, however, the dog’s tooth pierced the shoe and his foot.
“I
jerked away my foot because of the pain and felt my flesh tear
and a tendon pop in my foot.”
Id.
The officers then pulled the
dog away, and in response to Woodman’s questioning as to why they
would let the dog bite him, they reportedly laughed and stated
“‘we didn’t let the dog bite you.’”
Id.
Woodman was subsequently taken to St. Johnsbury hospital.
The injury from the bicycle was cleaned and stitched, and Woodman
asked that the dog bite wound also be treated.
When he informed
the nurse that the police had allowed their dog to bite him, the
officers allegedly denied his claim.
Woodman does not know the
names of the officers involved, but believes their names were
published in a newspaper the day after the incident.
Discussion
The sole Defendant in this case is the Vermont State Police.
Defendant has moved to dismiss Woodman’s Complaint, arguing that
a federal lawsuit against the State Police is barred by the
Eleventh Amendment.
Further, to the extent any claims are being
brought against individual officers, Defendant notes that no
officers have been served.
The motion to dismiss is unopposed.
3
I.
Eleventh Amendment Immunity
The Eleventh Amendment states: “The 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.
Although the
Amendment, by its terms, bars only federal suits against state
governments by citizens of another state or foreign country, it
has also been interpreted to bar federal suits against state
governments by a state’s own citizens.
See Hans v. Louisiana,
134 U.S. 1, 15 (1890).
Accordingly, federal court jurisdiction over suits brought
against unconsenting states or state officials “was not
contemplated by the constitution when establishing the judicial
power of the United States.”
Id.
Unless the state consents to
suit or provides an express or statutory waiver of immunity, the
Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court against states and
state agencies.
Woods v. Rondout Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of
Educ., 466 F.3d 232, 236 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Regents of the
Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997)).
Any waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity by a state must be
unequivocally expressed.
U.S. 234, 238 n.1 (1985).
Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473
Congress also may abrogate the
Eleventh Amendment pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth
4
Amendment.
See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976).
The Supreme Court has recognized that Congress did not intend to
abrogate sovereign immunity for constitutional claims brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332,
340–41 (1979).
Here, the Vermont State Police is an entity within the
Vermont Department of Public Safety, a state agency.
V.S.A. § 212(18); 20 V.S.A. §§ 1871, 1911-14.
See 3
The State of
Vermont has not consented to suits against itself or its agencies
in federal court, and has in fact explicitly preserved its
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
See 12 V.S.A. § 5601(g).
Moreover, as Woodman’s federal claims may be reasonably construed
as alleging constitutional violations, Congress has not abrogated
Vermont’s immunity with respect to such claims.
U.S. at 340-41.
See Quern, 440
Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis of
Eleventh Amendment immunity is therefore GRANTED.
II.
Individual Defendants
Defendant also submits that, to the extent individual
officers are being sued, those officers have not been served
process.
Defendant therefore requests dismissal for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
Woodman states in his Complaint he does not know the
identities of the officers who allegedly allowed him to be bitten
by the police dog.
The Court also notes Woodman is currently
5
incarcerated in a private prison facility in Kentucky, and thus
may have difficulty obtaining those officers’ identities.
In Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997), the
Second Circuit determined that a pro se litigant is entitled to
assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant.
See Rogers v. New York City Police Dep’t, 2012 WL 4863161, at *3
(E.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2012);
Bensam v. Bharara, 2012 WL 3860029, at
*4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2012).
The Complaint in this case appears
to provide sufficient information to permit the State to identify
the officers in question.
It is therefore ORDERED that, within
30 days of this order, the Office of the Vermont Attorney General
shall identify those officers and provide Woodman and the Court
with addresses where they may be served.
Once this information
is provided, Woodman shall have 30 days to amend his Complaint to
state the names of the officers.
Thereafter, summonses may
issue, and service will be made in accordance with the Court’s
prior Order granting Woodman’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion to
dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED, and any claims against the Vermont
State Police are DISMISSED.
As to the individual police officers
allegedly involved, the Office of the Vermont Attorney General
shall, within 30 days, provide Woodman and the Court with their
6
names and addresses where they may be served.
Once that
information has been provided, Woodman shall file an Amended
Complaint within 30 days.
Failure to timely file an Amended
Complaint may result in the dismissal of this case with
prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Brattleboro, in the District of Vermont, this 6th
day of November, 2012.
/s/ J. Garvan Murtha
Honorable J. Garvan Murtha
United States District Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?