Pennix v. Clarke et al, No. 7:2019cv00051 - Document 18 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 10/23/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
OLERKS OFFICEU,S. DIST.COUR-' AT ROANOKE,VA FILED 22T 23 2219 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COVRT FOR TIIE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W RUINIA R OA NO K E D IW SIO N JOD IE SH A W NTA LE PEN NIX, JULIA z DUDL BY: W CASE N O .7:19CV00051 Plaintiff, V. M EM O R ANDU M O PINION HAROLD CLARKL :I AL , By: G len E.Conrad Senior U nited States DistrictJudge Defendants. Plaintiff Jodie Shaw ntale Pennix, a V irginia inm ate proceeding pro .K ,filed this civil rightsaction pursuantto 42 U.S.C.j1983,alleging thatcorrectionalofficers used excessive force againsthim ,in violation ofhis constitutionalrights. A fterreview ofthe record,the court concludesthatthe defendants'partialm otion to dism issm ustbe granted. ln 2018,Pennix wasconfined atRiverNorth CorrectionalCenter(ççRNCC''),a prison facilityoperatedbytheVirginiaDepartmentofCorrections(<$VDOC'').Heallegesthefollowing sequenceofeventsonwhich he baseshisj 1983*claims. 0n May l8,2018,officerssearched Pennix's celland discovered paraphernalia used to m ake wine. Defendants Dean,Lundy,and Lyonscalled Pennix and hiscellm ate into the hallway and told them they w ere being m oved to segregation. Lyons frisked Pennix and then ordered him to kneeldgwn to be handcuffed and shackled. Pennix asked several tim es for help kneeling because he has çGbad knees.'' M em . Pennix v. Clarke et al Supp.3,ECF N o.1-2. Lyonsrefused to shackle Pennix unlesshe w askneeling. Doc. 18 Atthispoint,Dean tçthrew (Pennixlface-down onto the ground. (He)did notresist. Dean punched (himqintheface. DefendantLundy kicked (Pennix)underhiseye''and on his nose,thenççdroppedhiskneeonto(Pennix's)headseveraltimes.''1d.W hilePennixwasonthe Dockets.Justia.com C K ground,D ean and Lyons placed him in handcuffs and shackles. W hen he was fully restrained, they picked him up and escorted him outside. On the way,Kr ean bent(Pennix's)leftwrist backwards''andLyonsGEtorqued(hisjrightarm upwards...ata30-45degreeangleandcausing him to experience im m ensepain in hisshoulden'' ld. W hen Pennix complained thatthe oficers werehurtinghim,lçDeanbent(his)wristevenfurther,''causinghim to scream inpain. Id.at4. Dean (sthrew Pennix)into thecementface-irst,causing him to getçroa'd rash'on histemple. HeandLyonsstarted choking (Pennix)withhisshirt.''IZ Pennix toldthem thathecouldnot breathe and wasblacking out,and they loosened the shirq picked him up,and escorted him to segregation w ith no further incident. From the incident,Pennix suffered çdan abrasion on the left side ofhisface,a bloody nose,a cutunderhisrighteye,cuts on hisw ristsand ankles,a lum p on hislehforehead,''backandkneepain,andmentalinjury.1d. ln the complaint,Pennix alleges(1)claimsunderj1983thatDean,Lyons,and Lundy used excessiveforceagainsthim,inviolationoftheEighthAmendment;(2)claimsthatDean, Lyons,andLundy committed assaultand battery againsthim in violation ofstatelaw;apd (3) claim sthatVD OC D irectorClarke is vicariously liable forhis subordinates'state law violations under the doctrine of respondeat superior. A s relief,Pennix seeks com pensatory and punitive dam ages. The defendants have filed a partial motion to dism iss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedurç 12(b)(6),arguing thatthey are immune to Pennix's claims againstthem in their officialcapacities and thatClarke is entitled to sovereign im munity.Pennix hasrespondçd to the defendants'm otion,m aking itripe fordisposition. 1l. The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the com plaint, not to decide the m erits of the action. Edw ards v. City of Goldsboro,178F.3d 231,243-44 (4th Cir.1999).Atthisstageofthelitigation,thecourtmust accept the w ell-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor. 1d.at244. To survive a m otion to dism iss underRule 12(b)(6),theGscomplaintmustcontain suftkientfactualmatter,accepted astrue,to stateaclaim toreliefthatisplausibleonitsface.''Ashcroftv.lqbal.556U.S.662,678(2009).1 The defendantsargue thatVD OC DirectorClarke cannotbe held vicariously liable under respondeat superior for the alleged state law violations comm itted by his subordinates.z In response to the defendanls'm otion,Pennix concedes thathis only claim s againstClarke should be dism issed as the defendants contend. The courtagrees. See Reid v.N ew ton,N o. .3:13-CV- 572, 2014 W L 1493569, at *9 (E.D.Va. Apr. l4, 2014) (holding that a regionaljail superintendent could not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior because he m erely supervised subordinates, rather than appointed or em ployed deputies to carry out his duties);Rasiv.Dep'tofCorr.,No.7:08CV00203,2009W L 102530,at*10(W .D.Va.Jan.14, 2009)(sipublicoffcersaregenerallynotvicariöuslyliablefortheactionsofasubordinateunless the publicoftkerappointed thatsubordinate.'')(citing FirstVa.Bank-colonialv.Baker,301 S.E.2d8,13n.4 (Va.1983)(çç(Aqpublicofficerwhoappoints' adeputy(asdistinguishedfrom a mereassistantorsubordinate)isgenerallyresponsibleforthegdeputy'sqofGcialacts,becausethe I The court has omitted internal quotation marks, alterations or citations here and throughout this memorandum opinion,unlessotherwise noted. 2 Pennix doesnotclaim thatClarke should be held vicariously liable forthe otherdefendants'alleged constitutionalviolationsby meansofrespondeatsuoerior,norcould he. SeeMonellv.Der'tofSoc.Servs.,436 U.S.652,691(1978)(findmgnovicariousliabilityforamunicipalçtperson''under42U.S.C.j1983)9Vinnedeev. Gibbs,550F.2d926,928(4thCir.1977)C-rhedoctrineofrespondeatsurieriorhasnoapplicationunder(j1983).'3. actof'thedepuv,bycolorortheprincipk-sauiorits isfsxtortheprincipallumxelr....,'). Accordingly,thecourtwillr antthemotlon to.dlsmlssastoClarke. The defendsntsalso arguethatPennix cnnnotprevailon llls clzmAfordn- ngesagslnqt Deap Lundy,andLyonsintheirofficlalcapacities. 'Ihecourtagrees. Stateemployeesqcting in . . theiroffclalcapacitiesdpnotqlmlify asSl persons''subjeç tobeingsuedlmder91983.'W 11lv. MichlganDep'tofStatePolice.491U.S.58,71(1989).Th . eEleyenth Amepdmentprrcludesan ' ..' . ' . .. ., ' . .*' . . awàrd ofm onetary damagesagnlnqta state employee who hmsbeen sued in hlsoftkialcapacity underj 1983.Cromerv.Brown,88F.3d1315,1332(4thCir.199$. Forthestatedreasons,tiecourtconcludestbatthedefendants'pnelalmotiontddsmlss mustbegranted.The actionwillgo forward oilPennlx'sremm'nlngclru'mKagnlnKtDemn,Llmdy, andLyonsin theirindividualcapaciies.An appropdateordèrwillenterthlAday. ENTEK ThisosA4 day ofOdober,2019. . SeniorUnhed StatesDisd ctJudge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
