Carter v. Western Regional Jail et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 9 MOTION by Western Regional Jail to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; directing the Clerk of this Court to terminate it as a party; the case shall proceed against Correctional Officers Berlin and Lambert. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 6/11/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (mkw)

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

KENNETH CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-25636

WESTERN REGIONAL JAIL,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS JOHN DOES,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GARY LAMBERT,
and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MATTHEW BERLIN,
Defendants.
MEMORANUM OPINION AND ORDER
On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff Kenneth Carter filed this action against
Defendant Western Regional Jail (WRJ). In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts his civil rights were
violated because he was beaten by correctional officers and was denied medical treatment.
Thereafter, the WRJ filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 9. At the time the
motion was filed, Plaintiff Kenneth Carter was pro se and his Complaint was filed against the WRJ
and John Doe Correctional Officers. Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion. 1 However, at
a discovery status conference held on October 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s
pro se oral motion to amend his complaint to add Correctional Officer Gary Lambert and
Correctional Officer Matthew Berlin as Defendants. ECF No. 13.

1

Plaintiff is now represented by counsel. However, counsel filed a Notice of Appearance
long after the response period had expired. ECF No. 25.

In its motion, the WRJ argues the Complaint must be dismissed against it because it
is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. This
Court repeatedly has held under similar circumstances that the WRJ and the West Virginia
Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority (WVRJCFA) are entitled to immunity. In
Carroll v. West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority, No. 3:14-17012, 2015
WL 1395886 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 25, 2015), this Court held “[i]t is well established that the
WVRJCFA is an agency or ‘arm of the state’ that is protected by Eleventh Amendment
Immunity.” 2015 WL 1395886, at *2 (citing Cantley v. W. Va. Reg’l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth.,
728 F. Supp.2d 803, 818 (S.D. W. Va. 2010); Roach v. Burke, 825 F. Supp. 116, 117-18 (N.D.
W. Va. 1993)).

The Court further found that none of the three narrow exceptions to the

application of immunity under the Eleventh Amendment applied. First, the Court found that suits
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 do not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. Id. (quoting
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341, 345 (1979)). Second, there is no evidence West Virginia
waived its immunity. Id. (citing Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Highways, 845 F.2d
468, 470 (4th Cir. 1988)). Third, although “a state official may be sued in his official capacity for
prospective relief pursuant to Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908),” the plaintiff sought money
damages, therefore, this exception also did not apply. Id. Accordingly, this Court dismissed the
claims against the WVRJCFA. Id. See also Smith v. W. Va. Reg’l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth.,
3:12-7358, 2013 WL 3788399 (S.D. W. Va. July 18, 2013) (finding the WRJ and WVRJCFA are
immune from suit)).

Similarly, none of these exceptions apply to the present case. Therefore, the Court
GRANTS the Western Regional Jail’s Motion to Dismiss and DIRECTS the Clerk of this Court

-2-

to terminate it as a party. The case shall proceed against Correctional Officers Berlin and
Lambert.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties.

ENTER:

-3-

June 11, 2015