Miller v. South Central Regional Jail

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot defendant's 5 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint; directing the Clerk's Office to remove this case from the Court's Docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/9/2013. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

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

GREGORY DEAN MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-09112

SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is Defendant South Central Regional Jail’s motion to dismiss [ECF 5.] For the
reasons that follow, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion to dismiss.
I.

BACKGROUND

In his Complaint, Plaintiff, Gregory Dean Miller, alleges that in August 2011 he was
incarcerated at the South Central Regional Jail (“SCRJ”), the sole Defendant named in the case.1
The following factual allegations are drawn from Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court, as it must
when deciding a motion to dismiss, accepts these facts as true.
On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff broke his jaw “apparently in [a] fight with another inmate
and a fall in the shower.” (ECF 1 at 1.) Plaintiff reported his injury to the “defendants.” (Id.)
The next day, X-rays of his jaw were taken––presumably by SCRJ medical staff. The X-Ray
records indicated that Plaintiff’s left mandible was possibly fractured. (Id. at 2.) “Defendants”

1

Despite the fact that there is only one Defendant named in this case, the factual allegations throughout Plaintiff’s
Complaint reference unnamed, plural “defendants.”

refused Plaintiff’s requests to be taken to the hospital. (Id.) Plaintiff remained in the SCRJ’s
medical unit for “about a week” and did not receive any medical treatment during this time. (Id.)
On August 24, 2011, a physician examined Plaintiff in the jail medical unit, who, for the first time,
prescribed Plaintiff pain medication. The following day, Plaintiff was taken to a surgical center
and his jaw was surgically repaired. Plaintiff was returned to the SCRJ’s medical unit the same
day and remained there for a little over a week. Plaintiff was then “placed in lockdown without
treatment and contrary to doctor’s orders” and, thereafter, returned to the general population
“without treatment.” (Id.) Plaintiff, again contrary to doctor’s orders, was fed solid food during
his convalescence. Plaintiff claims that he suffered permanent injuries as a consequence of “the
delay in medical treatment by defendants.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that his administrative
complaints “have gone unheeded.”2 (Id.)
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains two counts. The first count is titled “Count 1- Violation of
W. Va. Code, Section”. (Id. at 4.) Nowhere in this count, however, is there any reference to any
West Virginia Code section. Rather the Count references the Cruel and Unusual Punishments
Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff’s theory of liability in this
Count is that the “defendants” acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical condition
by withholding and delaying surgery for his jaw. The second count is titled “Count 2 – Violation

2

Plaintiff’s Complaint also contains two seemingly incongruous allegations. First, Plaintiff alleges that in
February 2009, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the SCRJ and “got into an argument with Corporal Ranson who
threatened to ‘shoot (plaintiff) in the head’ if he saw him on the streets.” (Id. at 3.) Corporal Ranson is not a named
Defendant in this case and is not referenced anywhere else in the Complaint. Moreover, this allegation appears to be
factually unconnected in time and character with Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims which are predicated exclusively on the
August 2011, injury to Plaintiff’s jaw. Second, Plaintiff alleges that “the defendant Crook was aware, and/or in the
exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the events set forth herein, and is directly and vicariously
liable for the actions or inactions of the defendant employees of the South Central Regional Jail, as set forth herein.”
(Id.) There is no “Defendant Crook” or “defendant employees” in this action.

2

of Eighth Amendment– Section 1983 Failure to Protect.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff’s theory of liability
is that the “defendants” violated their “Eighth Amendment duty” by failing to take reasonable
measures to protect Plaintiff from “having his jaw broken by another inmate on August 15, 2011.”
(Id. at 5.) Plaintiff requests compensatory and punitive damages.
Defendant SCRJ filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendant filed
supporting and supplemental memoranda (ECF 6 & 9). Plaintiff filed his response to the motion
to dismiss (ECF 8). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is now ripe for disposition.
II.

DISCUSSION

Defendant predicates its motion to dismiss on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
contending that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF 6 at 4–
5.) Defendant states that dismissal is justified when the complaint’s allegations clearly show that
the plaintiff does not have a claim. (ECF 6 at 5.)
Defendant SCRJ is not a legal entity, but rather is a facility operated by the West Virginia
Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority (“WVRJA”). As such it cannot be liable for any
injury alleged by Plaintiff. See Edwards v. State, No. 2:00–0775, 2002 WL 34364404, at *5 (S.D.
W. Va. Mar. 29, 2002) (Goodwin, J.).
For the sake of discussion, even if Plaintiff had named the WVRJA as a defendant in this
suit, dismissal would still result because the WVRJA, as an agency of the State of West Virginia,
would likely raise an immunity defense under the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.3
Cantley v. W. Va. Reg’l Jail and Corr. Facility Auth., 728 F.Supp.2d 803, 818 (S.D. W. Va. 2010)

3 Defendants did not argue Eleventh Amendment immunity in their motion.

3

(Chambers, J.); (Goodwin, Chief); see also Roach v. Burke, 825 F. Supp. 116, 118–19 (N.D. W.
Va. 1993) (Maxwell, C.J.) (same). The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution
provides: “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. The Eleventh
Amendment “extends also to ‘state agents and state instrumentalities’ or stated otherwise, to ‘arms
of the State’ and State Officials.” Cash v. Granville Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 242 F.3d 219, 222 (4th Cir.
2001) (citations omitted).
In Will v. Michigan. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, (1989), the Supreme Court held:
Section 1983 provides a federal forum to remedy many deprivations of civil
liberties, but it does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy
against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties. The Eleventh
Amendment bars such suits unless the State has waived its immunity . . . or unless
Congress has exercised its undoubted power under § 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment to override that immunity.
(internal citation omitted).
In sum, because the SCRJ is not a legal entity, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed on
this basis. Assuming Plaintiff had named the WVRJA as the defendant, dismissal would likely
result because the WVRJA is not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and, unless waived or
overridden by Congress, enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. Having found that
Plaintiff has failed to name a prosecutable defendant, the Court need not address the various
arguments Defendant raises in its motion to dismiss.

4

III. CONCLUSI
ION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT D
A
D
S
Defendant’s motion to d
dismiss [EC 5],
CF
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Compla
aint, and DIR
RECTS the Clerk’s Off to remov this case from
fice
ve
the Court Docket.
t’s
IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.
The Court DI
T
IRECTS the Clerk to se a copy o this Order to counsel o record and any
e
end
of
of
d
unreprese
ented party.
ENTER:

5

9,
August 9 2013