Robinson v. Mawyer et al, No. 7:2018cv00138 - Document 52 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 2/21/2019. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Robinson v. Mawyer et al Doc. 52 P1G eaAT oy-ncEu.s.uls., Rx oc ,vA FILED IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COUFT FO R TH E W E STERN D ISTR ICT O F W RG IN IA R OAN O U D IW SION W ILLIAM R O BIN SON , Petitioner, FEB 2 12218 JUUA .D BK D / , CL RK CASE N O .7:18-CV-00D 8 V. D AW D W .M AW YER,etal.y Respondents. By:H on.M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUnited StatesDistdctJudge M E M O R AN D U M O RD E R W illiam Robinson,currently being held atthe Prince W illinm -M anassasRegionalAdult Detention Center,complainsthathisconstitutionalrightsandrightsunderVirginiastate1aw were violatedwhilehewasapatientatW estem StateHospitalinStatmton,Virgiëa(W SH).Proceeding prose,Robinson filedthislawsuitseekingreliefvia42 U.S.C.j 1983. DefendantsM aryClare Sm ith,M .D .,David W .M awyer,EugeneSim opolous,M .D.,BrianK iernanjSgt.Kaleigh Bishop, Sgt. M atthew M ercer, Sgt. Andrew W ilhelm, Sgt. Brad Carter, and Trent Humphdes, al1 employeesofW SH,have filed a m otion to dism iss.ECF No.33.DefendantsDouglasBrydge,a Virginia State Trooper, and Liz Garvey, an adult protective services Nvorker enzployed by Shenandoah Vallçy SocialServices,filed separatem otionstodismiss.ECF Nos.36,41.Robinson responded tothem otionsto dism iss,m nkingthismatterripefordisposition. Also pending isRobinson'smotion to nm end M scomplaintto allege thata11defendants acted under color of state 1aw in their individualand offcialcapacities.He also seeks to add lmknom zstaffm em berswhom heallegesweredirectly in chargeofsecudty in hislmit.ECF N o. 45. Forthe reasonssetforth below,them otion to amend isGR ANTED ;the motionsto dismiss areGRANTED and Robinson'slawsuitisDISM ISSED in itsentirety forfailureto stateaclaim . Dockets.Justia.com BACK GROUND 1. FactualAllegations The following facts,wbich ate taken ftom Robinson's com plaint,the m oéons to disnaiss,llisresponse to the m odonsto dismiss,and allthe attached exhibits,ate accepted as tt'ue forptuposesofthedefendants'm odons.l O n April21,2017 Robinson wasadnnitted to W SH via an ozdetforapsychologicalevaluadon by thePrinceW illiam County CitcuitCotut. ECF N o.34-1 at1.H e w as facing charges ofabducdon,attem pted robbery,conspizacy to com m itrobbery,failure to appeat,grand larceny,possession ofa flteatm by aconvicted felon, and use ofa fl 'rentm in com m ission ofa felony. ECF N o.34-3 at1. In the evening ofM ay 5,2017,Robinson waslying itallisroom trying to sleep when 1 fem alepatiententered hisroom and clim bedinto llisbed.H egotup and told herto leavebut shewould not.H ectid notknow whattodo and did notwantto getin troubleso helefthis room .W hen hezeturned,shew asstillin hisbed.H etold hertoleaveand snatched thecovers offthe bed. She reached up and grabbed his sweatshittand pulled him down on top ofher, locked hetlegsaround him ,and told lnim thatiftheyw ould have sex,shewould leave.Because hewanted hetto leaveand clid notwanttogetin ttouble,theyhad sex.Thewom an stillwolzld notleave llis room ,so he leftagain and when he returned to tlne room ,she Snally leftthe toom and he locked the door. She returned and began knocking on the locked door and telling lnim to letherin,butherefused.A tthatpointthe staffsaw herand rem oved herfzom 1SeeCanad v.Hod es,No.7:17CV00464,2018WL 3146792 (W .D.Va.2018)(constoxing additbnalfactsirl ro seresponseasamendmentsto complaint)and Scatesv.Doe,No.6:152904-MFS-lU M,2016 W L 8672963 O .S.C.2016) (nodng thatin evaluae g a modon to dism iss,courtsevaluate the com plaintin its entirety,inclucling docum entsthatareintegralto and relied on in thecomplaintwhen thereisno question asto theitauthendcity). in ftontofltistoom .ECF N o.1at5.Thenextday,thesam efem alepatientpinned Robinson wit .h herbodyin thephonebooth area and staffhad to tem oveher. O n M ay 7, 2017,Robinson told two m em bets of his trea% ent team what had happened and told theentire team the nextday.ECF N o.1 at3,5,6.I'Iisteam w asawareof whathad happened and told him thatm em bersofthe secutity staffwetegoing to talk to him . O n M ay 9,2017 hetold secut'ity staffm em berswhathad happened and thatthefem alepadent cone ued to harass bim ,including an episode earlie. rthatday when she had trapped bim in the television room and staff had to rem ove her.ECF N o.1 at3.O n M ay 12,2017 staff m oved Robinson to anothezarea ofthe hospital,wllich he described asffharsher.'' Id.W hen hewasm oved to the new unithe foughtwith theadm inisttadon overeducadon,food,water, and safetyand wasforced to do thingsthatTfgot ghimjassaulted.''He also allegesthatllis treatmentteam stopped seeinghim andpzovidinghim with anytypeoftherapy.J.i An investigatbn was started based on an ordet by defendantD r.Sim opolous. ECF N o.40-1 at 1-2. A ccording to an invesdgadon zeport,defendantH umphties,the facility inveségator,directed defendantW ilhelm to interview Robinson and also to zeview video of the enttance ofRobinson'sroom on the evening ofM ay 5,2017. Video ftlesw ete m ade of footagetaken from 9:24 to 9:26p.m .,10:22 to 10:39 p.m .,and 12:38 a.m .to 12:42 a.m .Video showed the fem alepadententezing Robinson'sroom ,and show ed Robinson leaving lliszoom several ém es wlaile she zem ained inside.The last video flle show ed two staff m em bers zedirecting the w om an away from Robinson'sbedroom door.Thete wasno video recorded inside the room .ECF N o.40-1 at 3.W ilhelm noted that d'Ating these tim e periods staff appeared to beconducdng their ' -minutechecks.J.Z Robinson desczibed to W ilhelm the sam e incident he describes hete. In addidon, Robinson told W ilhehn thatthe fem ale paéentwastelling otherpadents thaiRobinson was thefatherofherthree childten and thatshefollowed him thtoughouttheunit,touching him , r abbing him,and pinning him againstthepadentphones.Li at2.H eFzlrfhertoldW ilhelm thathewasin featandthesimadonwasaffecdngllisanxietyand deptession.Li W ilhelm noted thatRobinson had reported the incidentto sm dentswho passed iton to D z.Sim opoulos,who oldered the invesdgation.The facility director,defendantM awyer, asked defendant M etcer to conductan itw esdgation,w hich led to W ilhelm conducting the interview and pulling thevideo footage. Id.at2-3. Anotherm em berofthesecut'itystaff,defendantCazter,interdew ed thefem alepaéent. H ez thoughts were disotganized,butwhen asked directly if she wentinto som çone else's bedroom on the rlightofM ay 5,2017,she said that she did. She idenéfied the padentas fV illinm ''and said hehad kepttelling herto go to hisroom ,so she did.She said hepulled his Pantsdow n and said,<<ldon'thavealldap'?H e asked hetto tatn around and when shewould not,they 130t11leftthetoom ,butlatertetuzned. W hen asked ifanything physicalhappened in the bedroom ,she said they had intercourse and she knew itw aswtong. W hen asked ifboth partksweze agzreable to theintezcoutse,she said,fY ea,itwas.'' ECF N o.40-1 at3-4. At som e point,anothet m em ber ofthe secutity staff,defendantBishop,spoke with Robinson,who told her thatllis statem enthad notchanged,butthatthe fem ale padentwas stillbothering Aim . Bishop also noted that she spoke to D r.Sim opoulosaboutthe fem ale paéent'scom petency to consentto sexualintercourse,buthe said the paéenthad notbeen at thehospitallong enough forlnim to pzovidean appropriate answer. Id.at4. Based on the interdews with Robinson and the fem ale patient; ditector M awyet decided to callthe state police to flittherinvestigate.D efendantstate troopezBrydgew entto the hospitalwhere he spoke with D r.Sim opoulos and told him aboutRobinson's pencling crim inalcharges.O therdefendantstaffm em bets,incluclingM awyet,H umphries,D r.Iq ernan, and adultpzotecdve servicesem ployeeLiz G azvey,w ere told aboutthe chazges.D z.Io eznan advised thatW SH wasawareofthe chatges,and tlkatthehospitalwould moveRobinson to another unitbecause ofrecentevents and also because ofthe violentnature ofthe chazges agninsthim .ECF N o.40-1 at5. TrooperBrydgeadvised thatthe allegationsofsexualassaultwere affhe said she said'' sitazation and that he w as not going to investigate furthet because the pardes had been interviewed byhospitalstaff A11pnttiesagreedwith laisconclusion.LdaHumpH ieszepozted that he and G arvey concluded that Robinson's allegaéons against the fem ale patientwere unfounded.Ldz.He added an ffAdministraéve lssue''that sergeants W ilhelm,M ercer, and . Carter needed to rem em berto always follow H ospitallnstm cdon #4040 when confronted with an allegaéon ofsexualmisconduct.J-daat5-6. Atsom epointaftertheincident,theD isabilityLaw CentetofVitginiam ailedaH um an RkhtsComplainttodefendantMazyClareSnaith,thecuzrent'faciv esdirectoratW SH.2The com plaintalleged thatRobinson w as purslaing relieftluough the H lxm an Rights Com plaint process because he w as denied due process when the hospital failed to conduct an invesdgadon into hisalleged sexualassault.ECF N o.40-1 at7.The com pbintalleged thatthe 2The com plaintw as ftled pursuantto 12 VAC 35-115-175,wllich descdbesthe processby wlnich an individualcan ftle acom plaintagainsthealth careptovidersthatateEcensed,funded, oroperated by theVitgitaiaD epattm entofBehavioralH ealth and D evelopm entalServices. hospitalwassupposed to irlitiatean im pardalitw esdgadon into,orresoluéon of,thecom plaint assoon aspossible,butno laterthan the nextbusinessday. Instead,thehospitalwaited two daystobegintheinvestkadonanddidnotirlitiatea<:201''invesdgadonatall.1d. A srelief,Robinson asked foran apologyforW SH 'Sfailure to ptotecthim and provide him with asafe environm ent,fotnothaving followed W SH 'Spoliciesand ptocedures,and for nothaving conducted an inteznalinvesdgadon ofhis com plaint. H e also asked thatstaffbe # retrnined on trmanning theirpostgsjand following procedtueswhen incidentsateteported.'' Finally,sitlce hehad been reaclm itted to W SH ,heasked notto be assigned to groupswit.h or' in close pzoxim ity to the fem alepadent. Id.at8. Smif.h responded to tlne letter on D ecem ber 7,2017.She said thatthe hospitaltook acéon the sam e day Robinson tepotted the incident by interviewitlg him and placing the fem ale paéenton increased m orlitoring.She acknowledged thatW SH did nottake stepsto addressllisdiscom fortand thattheycould havedoneso bytransferring him to adifferentunit in amoretimelymanner.Ld.aat9.Smith alsoreported thatthehospitalcompleted an internal review of lais com pbint,including a teview of staff perform ance of assigned duties, and determ ined thattheyw erecarried outasrequited.Toincreaseprotecéon ofallchentsatW SH , stepsw etetaken to ensurethatbedroom doorsweteclosed whileclientsweresleeping atrlight and the doorswere then locked by staffso thattheroom scolzld notbe accessed by anyone other than staff.Finally,Sm ith noted thatwhen Robinson waszeadnaitted to W SH ,he was housez in asepatateareaand floorfrom thefemalepadent.JA TheDisabilityLaw CenterofVirginiarespondedto Snnith and assetted thatthehospital was outofcompliancewith the human rkhtsreguladonsbecause itdtd notitweségate the 6 assault and zespond to Robinson v'ithin twenty-fouz hours of his com plaint and never conducted a <O I 201::itwestkadon. In addidon,Robinson condnued to ask for an acknowledgm entofW SH'Sallegedwrong-doing and an apologp Finally,heasked to havelnis hlxm an rightscom plainttreated in accordancewith 12VAC35-115-175.Id.at10.There isno response ftom W SH to the second lettetin the flle. II. CausesofAction Robinsonmakestlaefollowingcbims:(1)Thesexualassaultin hiszoom,theassault by the padenttelephones,and the factthathe w as forced to stay atound the fem ale padent ftom M ay 7,to M ay 12,2017 consdtuted negligenceand m entaland em odonaland abuse on thepattoftheW SH defendants;(2)Theitwestigation,otderedbydefendantHumphtiesand conducted by defendantsW ilhelm ,Carter,M etcer,and Bishop,was donepoorly,which also wasnegligent;(3)Thefailtueto removethefemalepadentimmediatelywasnegligentand abusive;(4)Afterhewasmovedtoanotlzerunit,hisnew trea% entteam stoppedalltreatment, whichheallegeswasnegligentandretaliatory;(5)DefendantsHllmphriesand Garveyfailed totalktohim oroffethim colmselingwhichwasneglkent;(6)Thesecutityoffcerdefendants wetenegligentforfailingtoprotecthim whilehewasatW SH;(7)DefendantHllmphdeswas neghgent fot fniling to follow inveségadve policies resulting in neglect and abuse; (8) D efendantsSm ith and M aw yetwetenegligentfozallowing staffto m akepoordecisionswhich reslzlted in Robinson being neglected,abused,and assaulted from M ay 5,2017 thtough M ay 31,20179(9)Defendants Smith and Hlxmpllriestetaliated agninstRobinson by having lnim declared competentand dischatgedonMay31,2017;(10)DefendantSmithwasnegligentfor notacceptingresponsibilityfortheacdonsofW SH employees;(11)Staffthatwason dutyon thenightofMay7,2017 failed toprotecthim from assault;(12)Staffon dutyafterM ay9, 2017failedtoprotecthim from thefemalepadentfrom thatdateuntilMay12,2017;and(13) D efendants Brydge, H llm phties, Ii eznan, G arvey, and Sim opoulos conspited to deny Robinson dueprocessby notallowing him to presschatgesand havehisallegationsheatd by the courtsystem . In a m odon to am end ftled on O ctober 5,2018,Robinson alleged thatall defendantsacted undercolor ofstatelaw and acted in thei. tindividualand offkialcapacides. H e also asked to nam e asdefendantstheunknown staffpetsonsitlhisunitwho wereon duty atthetim esheasassaulted and hrassed.Robinson seeks$5,000,000in damages. In theirm odonsto dismiss,theW SH defendantsand defendantBrydgeatguethatthis couttlackssubjectmatterjIltisdicéonovezRobinson'scbims,thatRobinsonhasfailedtostate acbim forrelief,and thatthey areendtled to quav ed im munity.D efendantG arvey atguesin hetm otion to dismissthatRobinson hasfailed to statea clnim againsther. D ISCU SSIO N M otiontoDismissPursuanttoRule12(b)(1) TheW SH defendantsand defendantBrydgem oveto dismisspursuantto Fed.R.CiV.P. 12q$(1),alleging thatthiscotutlackssubjectmatterjudsdicdon.They arguethatbecause Robinson cbimsthatmanyofthedefendants'acdonswereneglkentotabusive,thatheis alleging only state law causes ofacdqn and has failed to allege violadon of a consdtudonal right.In addidon,theyarguethatto theextentRobinson isbtingingadueprocessclnim based on any of llis allegadons,he is attem pdng to inflate state law tott causes of acdon into consdtudonalclnim sviamisuse ofthe Foutteenth Am endm ent. They cite Paulv.D avis,424 U.S.693,701 (1976),foritsholding thatthe Foutteenth Amendmentdoesnotby itsown forceextendtoplsindffsarighttobefreefrom allinjurywheretheStatemaybecharactedzed asatortfeasor. ltisw ellestablished thatadocllm entflled ro seisto belibetally consttued and a pm - î. q com plaint,regardless ofhow inartflllly pleaded,m ust be held to less stHngent standards . than fozmalpleadingsdzaftedbylawyezs.Ericksonv.Pazdus,551U.S.89,94(2007)9Haines v.Ketner,404U.S.519,520-521(1972).A liberalreadingofRobinson'scomplaint,combined with hisresponsesto the'm odonsto dismiss, indicate thatattheveryleastheisattem pe g to plead substandvedueprocessclnimsagainsttheW SH defendantsbased on (1)thealleged sexualassault and continued hatassment by the female padent;(2) the alleged failtue to propetly invesdgate his sexualassaultallegationsclnim sagainstthose defendantsinvolved in theinvesdgadon (3)thedecisionnottopursuecziminalcharges;and(4)theallegedretaliadon thatfollowedlnistepordng.Accordingly,thecolzrtûndsthatithassubjectmatterjutisdicéon overthese federalclnim s. II.Rule12(b)(6)M otion toDismiss To survive amodon to disnaissundetFederalRule ofCivilPtocedure 12q$(6),a com plaintm ustcontain suffkientfactualallegaéons,which,ifaccepted asttue,Tffstate aclnim tozeliefthatisplausibleonitsface.'''Ashczoftv.I bal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingBell Atl.Co .v.Twombl,550U.S.544,557(2007)).Undertheplausibilitystandard,acomplaint m ustcontzn çfm ore than labelsand conclusions''ora frfotmulaic recitadon ofthe elem ents ofacauseofacdon.''Tw om bl ,550 U.S.at555.Tlnisplausibilitystandard reqllitesaplsindff to dem onstrate m ote than f<a sheerpossibility thata defendanthasacted lanlaw filllp''J-q-x b 1, 556 U .S.at678. 9 W hen nlling on am odon to dism iss,the courtacceptsffthewell-pled allegatbnsofthe complnintastrue''and fTconsttuegsjthefactsand reasonableinferencesdedved thetefzom in thelightmostfavorabletotheplainéff.''Ibarrav.UnitedStates,120F.3d472,474 (4thCit. 1997).W hilethecotutmustacceptastt'ueallwell-pleadedfacmalallegadons,thesameisnot , ' tt'ueforlegalconclusions.ffTllreadbaretecitalsoftheelem entsofacauseofacdon,supported bym eteconclusorystatem ents,do notsuffice.''Jqbp-1 .,556U .S.at678.A couttneed notaccept - asttnle fTTlegalconclusions,elem entsofacauseofacdon,...bate assertionsdevoid offurther factualenhancem ent,...unwattanted infetences,unzeasonable conclusions,otargum ents.''' m chardsonv.Sha iro, Fed.Appx. ,2018W . L4520372(4t.h'Cit.2018)(quodngNemet Chevrolet,Ltd.v.Consïlmeraffairs.com,Inc.,591F.3d 250,255 (4th Cir.2009))(inteznal quotadon marksomitted).Thus,a complaintmustpzesentsufhcientnonconclusory facmal allegaéons to support a reasonable inference that the plsindffis endtled to zelief and the defendantis Jiable for the llnlawftzlactor omission alleged. See Fzancisv.Giacom elli,588 F.3d 186,196-197 (4th Cit.2009)(afif-ming disnaissalofcllim thatsimply stated alegal conclusionwithnofactssuppordngtheallegation)andIfingv.Rubenstein,825F.3d206,214 (4th Cir.2016)(f%a, relegalconclusionsTarenotendtled to theassllmpdon oftruth'and ate insufficienttostateaclspim.'7)(quodngJ-qb -x1,556U.S.at679). 111.Liabilityunder42U.S.C.j1983 To pzevailon acbim fotacivilrightsvioladon under42U.S.C.j1983,aplaindffmust establish (1) that he has been deprived of a right,privilege ot immunity secured by the ConsétazdonotlawsoftheUnitedStatesand(2)thattheconductaboutwbichhecomplains was com m itted by a petson acting under coloz ofstate law.D ow e v.TotalA cdon A ainst 10 Pover in RoanokeValle ,145 F.3d 653,658 (4th Cir.1998).Cllims for violadon of substanévedueprocessareacéonableunderj 1983.Zinermon v.Butch,494 U.S.113,125 (1990). Chimsbroughtagsinstdefendantsin theiroffcialcapacidesatenotcognizablein j 1983 lawsuits because neithez a state noz its ofik ialsacdng in their ofhcialcapacides aze pezsonsforptuposesofj1983.WiIIv.MichianDe 'tofStatePolice,491U.S.58,71(1989). Thus,a clqim broughtagninstan ofhcialin hisorher ofhcialcapacityisnotconsidered a suit against the ofhcial, but rather a suit agninst the offkial's offk e. Because the Eleventh Am endm entprohibitscout'tsfrom entertnining an acdon againstthe state,Alabam av.Pu h, 438U.S.781,782(1978),italsopzohibitscourtsfrom consideringclqimsagninstdefendants in thei. tofficialcapacides.Cromerv.Brown,88 F.3d 1315,1332 (4th Cit..1996). Robinson has sued the defendants in 130th theit individual and ofhcial capacides. Accordingly,any clsim s Robinson brings ar inst defendants in their . ofûcialcapacities are disrnissed. A. Qualilied Imm unity The doctrine ofqualihed im m lanity affords protecdon againstindividualliability for civildam agesto offkialsinsofarastheirconductdoesnotviolate cleatly established statutory otconsdtuéonaltightsofwlnich areasonableperson would haveknown.Peatson v.Callahan, 555 U.S.223,231 (2009)(quoéng Harlow v.Fitz etald,457 U.S.800,818 (1982)). Stated anotherway,Trgqjualified immunity protectsoffcials Twho commitconsdtudonalvioladons butw ho,in lightofclearly established law ,could reasonably believe thattheit . acdonswere lawftll.''' Bookerv.South Carolina De t.ofCorrectbns,855 F.3d 533,537-538 (4th Cir. 2107)(citingHe v.Purnell,652 F.3d 524,531(4th Cir.2011)(en bancl). Thedoctrine weighstheneed to hold publicoffkialsaccountableforirresponsibleexerciseofpoweragninst theneed to sllield offkialsftom harassm ent,clistraction,and liabilitywhen they perform thei. r dudesresponsibly.Booker,855F.3dat538(citingPearson,555U.Sat231). ln perform ing a qualified im m unity analysis,a couttm ustftrstdetetm ine the specifk dghtthattheplaindffallegeswasinflingedbythechallenged conduct.J-I. L (cidngWinfieldv. Bass,106 F.3d 525,530 (4th Cir.1997)(en bancl).The courtthen mustask whethera consdtudonalvioladon occurred and w hether thedghtviolated w ascleatly established atthe timetheofûcialviolatedit.Thequesdonsneednotbeaskedinapardcularotder.Ld-s(ciéng Melatexrel.M elarv.Greene,593F.3d348,353(4th Cir.2010)andPeatson,555U.S.at 236).Theplaindffbearsthebutdenofshowingthataconsdtudonalviolation occurzed,while the defendantbeats the btuden ofshowing entitlem entto quau ed im m unity.Puznell,501 F.3d at377. B. Supervisory Liability Thedoctrineofrespondeatsupedotdoesnotapplyto j1983 clnims.Monellv.De 't of Soc.Setvs.of City of N ew York,436 U.S.658,691 (1978).Li abilityofsupervisorsis Prenaised upon <fa tecognidon that supervisory indifference oz tacit authorizadon of subotdinates'misconductmaybeacausaévefactozin theconstiméonalitjutiestheyinflict on thosecommitted to theitcare.'' Slaken v.Potter,737 F.2d 368,372-73 (4th Cir.1984). The Fourth Circtzithas set fozth three elem ents necessary to establish supervisory liability undetj1983: (1)thatthesupervisorhad actazalorconstrucéveknowledgethatllissubozclinatewas engaged in conductthatposed <ça pervasive and unreasonable tisk''of constitudonal 91ju1-),tocie enslikethepllintiff;(2)thatthesuperdsot'sresponsetothatknowlqdge w as so inadequate asto show ffdeliberate indiffetence to or tacitauthorization ofthe allegedoffensivepracdces,'';and(3)thattherewasanffaffitvnadvecausallink''between the supervisoz's inacdon and the particular constittztionalinjury suffeted by the plninfjff.... To saésfy the tequirem ents ofthe fttstelem ent,a plaindffm ustshow the following: (1)thesuperdsor'sknowledgeof(2)conductengagedin byasubotdinate(3)wheze theconductposesapezw siveand unreasonablerisk ofconsdmtionalinjuryto the plainéff. Slaken,737 F.2d at.373. Establishing a ffpervasive''and ffurlreasonable''risk ofhnt'm requitesevidence thatthe conductiswidespread,otatleasthasbeen used on sevetaldiffezentoccasionsand thatthe conductengaged in by the subordinate poses anunreasonableziskofhntm orconsdttzdonalinjury.Id.at373-374. Shaw v.Sttoud,13F.3d 791,799 (4thCir.1994)(otherinteznalcitadonsomitted).A pbindff m ay establish deliberateindiffezenceby showingasupervisor'sfffcontinued inacdonin the face ofdocumented widespread abuses.'''ida(cie g Slaken,737F.2d at373).Proofofcausaéon m ay be ditectoritm ay be supplied by the tottprinciple thatholds a person liable for the natutalconsequencesoftheitacdons.ld.(citingSlaken,737F.2dat376). IV. Fourteenth Am endm entSubstantive D ue Ptocess TTlnvoluntarily com m ited padentsin state m entalhealth hospitals have a Folxtteenth A m endm entdue pzocesstightto beptovided safe condidonsby the hospitaladrniniqtzators.'' Ammonsv.W ashin tonDe t.ofSocialand HealthSerdces,648F.3d1020,1027(9th Cir. 2011).dflfitiscrtzelandunusualpunishmenttoholdconvictedcriminalsinunsafecondiéons, itm ustbeunconstM donalto confinetheitw oluntalily com m iaed- who m aynotbepunished atall- in unsafeconditions.''Youn ber v.Romeo,457U.S.307,315-316 (1982). The radonale for this ptinciple is sim ple enough:when the State by the affltvnadve exercise ofitspower so testtlins an individual's liberty thatitrendezshim unable to care forhim self,and atthesam etim e failsto provide fothisbasichum an needs---e.p, food, clothing, shelter, m edical care, and reasonable safety- it transgresses the substandve lim itson state acéon setby theEighth Am endm entand the D ueProcess Clause. Deshane v.Winneba oCoun De t.ofSocialServices,489U.S.189,200(1989). The Consdtution requiresthat couzts make certain thatprofessionaljudgment is exercised.Youn ber ,457U.S.at321.A decision,ifm adebyaprofessional/ispteslAmpdvely valid.ffgfjiabiltty may be imposed only when the decision by the professionalis such a substandaldeparnlre from accepted professionaljudgment,pracdce,ot standatds as to dem onsttate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.'' idz.at323. In Patten v.Nichols,274 F.3d 829,843 (4th Cit.2001),theFourth Citcuitnoted the following: Beyond recognizing thatthe standard requires proofofm oze than m ere negligence, courts have had som e diffkulty deterlnining ptecisely how far the professional judgmentstandard falls from negligence on the culpability continuum.'?Com are YvonneL.v.New MexicoDe 'tofHumanServs.,959F.2d883,894(10+ Cir.1992) (doubdng whethet dftheteismuch difference''between the delibezate indifference standatd and the Youn ber standard),with Doe v.New York City Dep'tofSoc. Servs.,709F.2d782,790(2dCit.1983)(stadngthatinYoun ber,dftlaeCotzrtadopted whatisessendallyagrossnegligencestandard');seealsoShawv.Strackhouse,920F.2d 1135, 1146 (3d Cir. 1990) rTrofessional judgment, like recklessness and gross negligence,genezally falls somewhere between simple neglkence and intenéonal misconduct.'). N evertheless,itisclearthatevidenceshowing a m ere depart'urefrom thatapplicable standatd ofcazeisinsufûcientto shoiv a consdttzdonalvioladon. Patlen,274 F.3d at845. The cotztt willexannine Robinson'scbim sin lightoftlaisstandard. 3TheYoun ber courtdefm ed ffprofessionaldecisionm aker''asaperson com petent,whether by educadon,ttaining,or experience,to m ake the pardculaz decision atissue. D ay-to-day decisionsregarding care,including decisionsthatm ustbem adewithoutdelay,necessarilyw111 bemadeitlmany instancesbyemployeeswitlwutfotmaltrainingbutwho are subjectto the supervision ofqualihed persons.Youn bet ,457 U.S.at323 n.30. 14 A . InitialAssault Robinson does not allege that any of the nanAed defendants Neere present on the evening ofthealleged assault.N ordoeshe assertthatthey had knowledgethattheassaultwas going to happen and failed to preventit.Thus,itisclearthathehasfailed to stateaclsim that any ofthenam ed defendantsviolated hisrightsby failing to stop the assault. Robinson also nam esasdefendantstheunknown staffm em berswho w etedizectly in charge ofsectuing lzisurlitand itisassllm ed forpurposesofthism oéon thatRobinson w ould be able to learn the nam es of the staff m em bets who wete ptesent.A s discussed above, conductwhich am ountsto no m otethan simple negligence doesnotconsdtutea kioladon of the tightto substantive due process. Robinson alleges thatwhen he discovered the fem ale patientin laisroom ,he leftbecause hew asafraid ofgete g in trouble,butthen retarned and had sex w1:. 11herso thatshew ould leave.Atno pointdid he alertstaffthatthe fem alepadent wasin histoom orthathewashavitlg any sortofttoublewit. h herandnothingin hisallegadons indicatesthatany staffm embezwasaware ofwhatw ashappeningin llisroom . W hileitispossible thatstaffcould havebeen m ore attendveto thewhereaboutsofthe paéents,Robinson's allegadonssim ply do notdescribe a conséttzdonalvioladon on the part ofthestaffmembers.SeeBeckv.Wilson,377F.3d884,890-891(8thCir.2004)(finclingthat neitherfailure to conductTffacechecks''ofpadentsdlaring twenty to thitty-m inuteHm epedod norbeingabsentfrom thenurse'sstadon to fillm edicadonsattim epaéentwasbeingassaulted amounted to morethan metenegligence)and Shaw b Strain v.Strackhouse,920F.2d 1135, 1143(3rdCit.1990)(finclingthatsingleincidentoffnilingtokeepwatch overmentaEydisabled person wllich resulted in llisleaving orbeing taken to anothetatea and sexually assaulted was 15 ffisolatedmishap''anddidnotamounttomozethanmeteneglkence).Accotdingly,Robinson has failed to allege a consdtudonalcause ofacdon based on the initialassault agninst any nam ed orunnam ed defendantand those clnim sare clism issed. B. Adi tionalA ssaultive Behavior Robinson clpim sthatthe fem ale padentassaulted lnim again the nextday,M ay 6,2017, when she pinned him to the wallwith her body.W hen the staff saw what she w as doing, som eone cam e and rem oved hez. A tthatpoint,Robinson had notyetreported the sexual assaultto laistreatm entteam and thereforenone ofthe defendantsw ete aware ofthe fem ale paéent's behavior. Therefore,for the sqm e reasonb thatRobinson did notstate a cause of acdon based on the irlidalassault,he cannotbase a cause ofacdon on the second assault because he cannotshow the assaultoccurred because a professionalem ployee substandally departedfrom acceptedjudgment,pracdce,otstandards. Robinson reported theincidentto sm dentworkerson M ay 7,2017 and on M ay 8,2017 he told his entite treatm entteam whathad happened. H e clnim s thaton M ay 9,2017 the fem ale padent trapped lnim in the television room gnd staff once again rem oved het.In addidon,hew asforced to continue to be around herundlM ay 12,2017 when hewasm oved. W hileitundoubtedly wasuncom fortable to bearound thepadent,the staffzesponded to the fem le patient's acdonsby rem oving her fzom Robinson's presence and he doesnotallege thatshetouched him afterMay 6,2017. Construing the factualallegadonsitatlaelkhtmost favorable to Robinson,the acdons of the fem ale padent,descdbed as trapping him in the television room and being in lzis presence for three orfouz days,do notrise to the levelof violaéonsofhiszightto zeasonable safety. A ccoêclingly,chim s ar installdefendantsbased on the assaultsand harassing behaviorare disnaissed forfat 'ltlre to state aclnim . C. Investigation Robinsoncontendsthatdefendantsinvolvedin theitwestkadon ofthesexualassault cbim didapoorjob.Constmlinglaispleadingsliberallyandgivinghim thebeneftofthedoubt, the courtreadsthe allegadon asa cbim thatthe inveségadon was so defkientthatitviolated hisrightto substantivedueprocess.Robinsonassertsthattheitwestkatorsclidapoorjobof interrogadng the fem ale patientbecause in therepol'tofthe itw eségadon,itdoesnotappear thatthe itw esdgators asked her aboutspeciûc allegadonsRobinson m ade,such ashisasking herto leave séveraltim esand herp llling him down on top ofher.H e singlesoutdefendant Hllmphries for failing to follow invesdgadon policiesand procedtues.H e also aversthatthe itw esdgatots treated the fem ale patientlike the victim in the assault and thatlais ttea% ent tenm began to treathim asifhehad assatzlted her. TheKfconstittztion createsno endtlem entto grievanceprocedlzresoraccessto anysuch ptocedutevoluntarilyestablishedbythestate.''Adamsv.ltice,40F.3d72,75(4thCit.1994). ln thecontextofan Eighth Am endm entdeliberateindifferenceclnim ,çrfaillzre to invesdgate'' m ay becom e actionable when a plainéffis tc ing to show thata supervisor was aware of a previouspattern ofconductand failed to investigateit,leading to flxttherincidents.Lavender v.C# ofRoanoke,826F.supp.zd 928,935-936 (W .D.Va.2011).Robinson isnotmaking such a clnim here and llis fçfailute to itw esdgate''allegadon,stancling alone,does notstate a clnim forvioladon ofa consétudonalright. 17 N ozdoesan allegadon thatastateactorviolated aW SH policy,withoutm ote,am ount to aconstitazdonalvioladon. SeeIticcio v.CountyofFairfax,Va.,907 F.2d 1459,1469 (4th Cir.1990)(statingthatvioladonofstate-createdproceduresdoesnotviolatetheconsdtudon iftheplaintiffotherwiseteceivedptocesshewasdue)andM ordsv.CityofD anville,Va.,744 F.2d 1041,1048n.9(4thCit.1984)(notingthatthemerefactthatastateagencyviolatesits own proceduresdoesnotmean ithasconttavened federaldueprocessrequirements).Thus, to the extentRobinson com plainsthatW SH clid notfollow itsown itw esdgadve policies,he has failed to state a clnim fora duepzocessviolaéon.4 Cloim s agninstH llm phties,W ilhelm , Carter,Mercer,andBishopbased.ontheinvestkadon aredismissed. D . Retaliation and Failute to M ove Fem ale Patient Robinson clnim s that after he com plained about the sexual assault, he suffered retaliation when W SH staff m oved him to a harsher envitomnent and m ade a prem ature fmding thathewascompetent,tesulting in hisdischatgeback to ja. 11.To state achim of retaliadon based on ptotectedspeech,aplaintiffmustallegethat(1)thespeech wasprotected; (2)the alleged retaliatov acéon adversely affected theprotected speech and (3)a causal relationship existed between the protected speech and theretaliation.Raub v.Cam bell,785 F.3d876,885(4thCir.2015).A bareasserdonofretaliadondoesnotstateanacdonablecbim. Tw om bl,550 U .S.at 555. M oreovet,itis notenough to state a clnim thatthe protected 4 M oreover, even if there were a consdttzéonal right to an itw eségadon under these circum stances,Robinson has notpleaded facts showing thatthe W H S invesdgadon in this casewasinadequate.InvestkatorsinterviewedRobinsonandthefemalepadentandreviewed avideo recorcling ofthehallway outsideRobinson'sroom .The fem alepaéentadm ittedhaving intercolzrse with Robinson butsaid itwasconsensuz.The factshe did notaclm itto sexually assaulting Robinson isnotareflecdon on theadequacy oftheinvesdgadon. 18 expression played atole orwas am otivadng factotin thezetaliadon. Ratheta plaindffm ust show thatt<butfor''the protected speech,the defendantw ould nothave taken the alleged retaliatory acdon.A m .Civ.Libeo esUnion v.W iconnico Cntp,999 F.2d 780,785-786 n.6 (4thCir.1993). In tlais case, Robinson m akes a bare allegadon that he was m oved to a harsher environm entfollowing the investigadon.Fitst,he did notdescribe the condidonsin thenew environm ent,other than to say he was geténg into argum ents wit.h staffand thatsom eone ffforced ghimlto do thingsthatgotgl1imlassaulted.''ECF No.1at3.Second,thenotesfrom the itw estigation reflectthatD r.lfietnan advised thatRobinson was going to be m oved to Unit 2 EIm 'fdue to the recent events and the violent crim es'' that he w as accused of com m itdng pdor to being admitted to the hospital.E CF N o.40-1 at 5.Thus,itdoes not appearthatRobinson haspleaded sufhcientfacts to show thatTfbutfor''his com pbint,he would nothave been m oved. ln adclidon,Robinson has notpleaded facts sufhcientto overcom e the presum pdon setoutin Youn ber thatliability m ay be im posed on a professionalonly ifa decision was suchasubstantialdepatttuefrom acceptedptofessionaljudgment,practice,orstandardsasto demonsttate thatthe professionalactually did notbase the decision on such a judgment. Robinson asked to bekeptaway from thefem alepadentandwhilehem ayw ellhavepreferred that she,tather than he,be m oved,he has not pleaded facts to show that Dr.Iq etnan's decision tomovellim andnotherwasnotbased on pzofessionaljudgment. Robinson also clnim sthatafterhe wasttansferred to thenew unit,llistrea% entteam refused to tteat lnim .H is allegadon that the failure to treat him was retaliatory is a legal 19 conclusion unsupported by facts.Addidonally, Robinson was only in the new utlit for apptoxim ately three w eeksuntilhe was discharged. Even if the failtzre to treathim in that periodwetenegligent,theprofessionaljudgmentstandatdisnotamalpracticestandazdanda depnttnare ftom accepted professionaljudgmentmustbe substandalto giverise to liability. Patten,274F.3dat845(citingYoun bet ,644F.2dat178).Robinson hasfailedto statea clnim based on hisallegaéon thatlliswasnottteated aftezhistransfez. Regarding laisdischarge,adocum entsubm itted bytheW SH dèfendantsshowsthatthe order that Robinson be evaluated w as entered on A pdl 7, 2017 and received by the D epar% ent of Behavioral H ealth and D eveiopm ental Services on April 11, 2017. The evaluadon w asdueon M ay 26,2017.ECF N o.34-1 at1.Robinson w asadm itted to W SH on April21,2017.ECF N o.34-3 at1.A lthough theitlidalevaluadon isnotin therecotd,on M ay 26,2017 the circuit cout.tozdered thatRobinson be treated in an effoztto restore him to com petency. ECF N o.34-2. Robinson asseztsthathew asdischarged on M ay 31,2017 following a Snding thathe wasrestoted to com petency.H e contends thatthe factthathe was found com petentand eligible for discharge only hve days after he wasordezed tteated indicates thatthe discharge wasretaliatoly based on hishaving com plained ofsexualassault. Defendantssubnaitted a letlerfrom a clinicalpsychologistto the circuitcolzrtjudge dated August 14,2017 wllich zefersto the discharge.ECF N o.34-3.The psychologistnotes thatatthe dm e ofllis discharge,Robinson wasdiagnosed only w1t. 11opioid use disorderand stim ulantusedisorder.H ewasnotptescribed any scheduled m entalhealth m edicationsdlxtitng bis stay because he showed no need forthem . H ewasable to recountdetailsofthe alleged 20 sexualassaultand aftet he wasttansferzed to the new unit,he could accurately describe the differencesbetween the old unitand the new unit.H owever,he declined to discusslzislegyl situadon w hen given an oppoztaznity to do so. H e showed no evidence ofhazucinadonsor delusions.In adcH on,staffheard him talking with peersabouthow to appeatm entally illin ozder to stay in the hospitallonget.Id.at2. Robinson hasnotovercom ethepresumpdon thatthedischargedecision w asm ade by a professional staff m em ber and in accordance w1t. 11accepted standards.Accordingly,his cbim s againstdefendants Snlith and H um phliesbased on lzis ttansfer to another unit and discharge from W SH are disnlissed for failuteto state a claim . E . Failure to Bring Charges Robz son asserts that defendants Brydge, H lzm phties, Ii etnan, G atvey, and Sim opoulosconspired to deny him dueprocessby notallowing him to presschargesand have hisallegadonsheatdbythecourtsystem .Asanitnidalm atter,theW SH defendantsand G arvey are notlaw enforcem entofhcetsand clid nothaveauthorityto m akeadecision aboutwhether to ptoceed with crim inalchatges againstthe fem ale padent. Thezefote,Robinson hasfailed to state aclnim againstthem forconspiracy to deny him dueptocess. Brydgewasthestatetrooperwhowentto W SH to investkateRobinson'sallegaéons and stated thathe declined to pursue the m atter 6ltther because itwas a fçhe said she szd'' sim adon.Although Robinson clsim stlaisdecision violated llisconséttztionalrights,<fa pdvate ciézenlacksajudiciallycognizableinterestintheprosecudon otnonprosecudon ofanother.'' Linda R.S.v.ltichard D.,410 U.S.614,619 (1973).See also Smith v.Mccarth ,349 Fed. Appx.851,859,2009W L 3451714 (4th Cir.2009)(commenting thatbecauseplaindffsin j 1983 action had no tightto a ctim inalinvesdgation otptosecudon ofanother,they failed to allegeviolation ofaclearlyestablished statutoryorconslituionaldght)andRile v.Patterson, No.9:07-2655-HFF-GCK,2007W L 2471203at*2(13.S.C.2007)(flnctingthatj1983clmim thataprisonet'sconsdtudonaldghtsw ereviolated by lack ofctim inalprosecudon ofanother did notstateaviablelegalclsim and collecdngcases). Thus,Robinson hasfailed to statea clsiim fotvioladon oflaisrightto dueprocesson these factsand thisclnim isdismissed agninst alldefendants. F.Failure to Provide Counseling Robinson also allegesthatdefendantG arvey,an adultprotecdveserviceswotker,failed to aid,counsel,and assisthim afterhewassexuallyassaulted.H ecom plainsthatsheffwasand isa tesponsible party in denying pbintiffdue ptocessand neglecdng thispadentalltogether gsicl.'' ECF No.44 at 1.However,asdiscussed above,Robinson hasnotshown thathe suffered a violaéon ofhisdue pzocessdghtsrelated to the sexualassalzltorthe invesdgadon thatfollowed.Addidonally,theinvestkadon reportshowsthatGarvey patdcipated in the m eeting whete W SH staffand defendantBrydge discussed Robinson'sallegadons,indicadng thatG arvey did notneglecthim altogethet.Finally,asaprofessional,G arv' eyisendtled to the Youn ber presum pùon that she acted in a m anner consistentw1t. 17 accepted professional judgmentoptacdce,orstandardsandnothingin Robinson'sclnim tebutsthatpzesumpdon. Forthesezeasons,Robinson'scloim sagninstG arvey are clismissed forfat 'lute to state aclnim . G. Supervisory Claim s Robinson also com plains thatdefendants Smith and M aw yer were negligent for not accepdng responsibility forthe acéonsofW SH em ployees.H owçver,notonly hasRobinson 22 failed to state a clnim for a constitudonalvioladon comm itted by any.,staffpetson,he has pleaded no factsto show thatSm ith or M awyer evhibited superdsory indifference or tacit authodzadon ofany suborflioates'misconduct.Accorclingly,hecannotshow thattheyviolated lnisconsdttzdonalrightto substandve due process. Based on the foregoing, the m otbns to disnniss, ECF N os.33, 36, and 41, ate GRAN TE D . Robinson'sm odon to nm end,ECF N o.45,isGRAN T ED . A11ofRobinson's j 1983 cbims against all defendants, in thei. r individual and ofhcial capacides are DISM ISSED.SPutsuantto28U.S.C.j1367(c),thecouttdeclinestoexercisesupplemental judsdicdonovetanystatelaw clnimsthatheraises.Anappzopdateorderwillbeentered. The Clezk isditected to send copiesofthism em orandum opinion and accom panym 'g orderto Robinson and to counselofzecotd forRespon'dent. Itisso O RD ERED . swvsu o: o w -w /.-z o t y ' /wf wr rz . . . & ..,zx. M ichaelE. r ansld ClziefUmted StatesDistrictJuzge / 5Although allthe defendantsalleged thatthey w ere endtled to qualihed im m unity,because Robinson wholly failed to stateacauseofacdon foraconsdm donalvioladon,thereisno need to conductthequalihed im m utzityanalysis. 23
]]>
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.
