Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bishop v. West Virginia Regional Jail

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division

March 26, 2018

WILLIAM BISHOP, Plaintiff,
v.
WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, CHIEF JUDGE.

         Pending before the Court is Defendant West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority's (“WVRJCFA”), joined by Defendant Correctional Officers Ramon Goux, William Michael Miller, Bryan Channel, James Michael Miller, Stephen Neville, Roberta Evans, Isaac Triplett, and William Allen[1], motion for summary judgment.[2] (ECF No. 96.) Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff William Bishop's (“Bishop”) motion for leave to amend his Complaint.[3] (ECF No. 222.) For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court GRANTS WVRJCFA's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 96.) The Court further DENIES Bishop's motion to amend. (ECF No. 222.)

         I. BACKGROUND

         This action arises out of allegations by Bishop that, on three separate occasions around 2014 through 2016, several correctional officers at the Tygart Valley Regional Jail (“TVRJ”) unlawfully used excessive force on him. (ECF No. 1-1 at ¶ 15.) In the caption of his Complaint, Bishop identifies the following correctional officers by their surnames as defendants: Neville, Triplett, Miller, Goux, Simons, Allen, and Evans. (See ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) Bishop also names John Doe Correctional Officers. (See id.)

         Bishop was an inmate at the TVRJ. (Id. at ¶ 1.) In his Complaint, Bishop alleges that Defendant Correctional Officers raided Bishop's jail cell without following the chain of command and beat him. (Id. at ¶ 19.) However, Bishop does not include the dates on which these alleged incidents occurred. (See id.) Bishop further alleges the following unlawful conduct by Defendant Correctional Officers:

1) Using unreasonable and excessive force in carrying out their duties;
2) Unnecessarily using threats of physical force and violence;
3) Violating CSR 95-1-4.1, 95-1-4.2, 95-1-4.9, 95-1-5.2, 95-1-5.13, 95-1-11.17, 95-1-15.9, 95-1-15.11, 95-1-15.13 and other regulations governing the operation of regional jails and Violating Policy and Procedures;
4) Failing to respond to the grievances filed by the inmates that were assaulted or deprived of their personal property;
5) Conspiring with each other and jail officials to hide their inappropriate and actionable conduct; and
6) Threatening and intimidating witnesses that were aware of the conduct described herein.

(Id. at ¶¶ 19-20.)

         On May 17, 2017, Bishop filed this action against the WVRJCFA and certain correctional officers working at the TVRJ in the Circuit Court for Kanawha County, West Virginia. (See ECF No. 1-1 at 2.) The Complaint alleges assault and battery (count one), intentional infliction of emotional distress (count two), violations of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions through use of excessive force (count three), violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (count four), negligent supervision (count five), negligence (count six), reckless and malicious conduct (counts seven and eight), conspiracy (count nine), intentional spoliation (count ten), and vicarious liability (count eleven). (See Id. at ¶¶ 23-70.) The WVRJCFA timely removed this action to this Court. (ECF No. 1.) The Court consolidated Bishop's case with nine other similar cases and designated Bishop's case as the lead case. (ECF No. 7.)

         On October 2, 2017, the WVRJCFA filed the present motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 96.) As stated above, several of the Defendant Correctional Officers also filed individual motions for summary judgment that simply join and incorporate the arguments from WVRJCFA's motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 110, 123, 126, 169, 179, 205.) Bishop timely responded to the WVRJCFA's motion and the WVRJCFA timely replied. (ECF Nos. 135, 152.) As such, the WVRJCFA's motion for summary judgment is fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.

         Bishop subsequently filed a motion to amend his Complaint. (ECF No. 222.) The WVRJCFA, joined by Defendant Correctional Officers Allen, Goux, Miller, Neville, Triplett, and Evans, filed a response in opposition to Bishop's motion to amend. (ECF No. 237.) Bishop filed a timely reply. (ECF No. 239.) As such, Bishop's motion to amend is also fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.

         II. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.