Jail employee denied immunity in wrongful death suit

A correctional officer failed in her bid for early dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the administrator of a deceased inmate because the complaint sufficiently alleged wrongful conduct, including falsifying records and failing to respond to the inmate’s pleas for help and assistance. Moreover, because the allegations supported claims of gross negligence and/or willful and wanton negligence, the official was not entitled to sovereign immunity or qualified immunity.

Background

This action arises out of the circumstances surrounding Jason Patrick Sisson’s tragic death in August 2017. Before his death, Jason Patrick Sisson had been an inmate at the Piedmont Regional Jail since June 8, 2017, prior to his death in August 2017.

Victoria Lynn Sisson, in her capacity as administrator, filed this complaint against 10 defendants, including Amy Baker, for violations of federal and state law. The complaint alleges that Baker, at all relevant times, was an employee and/or agent of the Piedmont Regional Jail Authority, or PRJA, and a correctional officer at the jail, who held the rank of sergeant and served as a supervisor to other officers.

Plaintiff asserts two claims against Baker: (1) wrongful death under Virginia Code § 8.01-50 due to Baker’s negligence, gross negligence and/or willful and wanton negligence and (2) deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical need resulting in cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Baker has filed a motion to dismiss.

Analysis

Baker contends that plaintiff fails to allege any facts showing wrongful conduct on her part that would give rise to any private right of action for any level of negligence against her in favor of plaintiff (or Sisson), and that any allegations of negligence are conclusory.

Plaintiff alleges that Baker knew or should have known of Sisson’s medical condition, was in the booking area during the events at issue, was aware that 15-minute checks were ordered to be performed, failed to perform the 15-minute checks or order anyone else to do so, signed off on falsified records and failed to respond to Sisson’s pleas for help and assistance. Plaintiff not only sufficiently states a claim for negligence, gross negligence, and willful and wanton negligence, but does so specifically against Baker for her own alleged negligent behavior.

Immunity

Baker asserts that, even if plaintiff has sufficiently stated a wrongful death claim against her, she is protected by sovereign immunity, and thus that claim must fail. Courts throughout Virginia are split as to whether regional jail authorities are entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity, and neither the Fourth Circuit nor the Supreme Court of Virginia have addressed this issue.

However, this court need not decide at this stage in the litigation whether the PRJA is entitled to sovereign immunity, or if it extends to Baker as an employee of the PRJA. Because this court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts supporting claims of gross negligence and/or willful and wanton negligence against Baker, Baker is not entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity at this stage in the litigation.

Deliberate indifference

Plaintiff next alleges that Baker was deliberately indifferent to Sisson’s serious medical need and failed to provide him necessary medical care, thereby creating a substantial risk of injury and death. She claims that was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment under § 1983.

Baker contends that plaintiff only offers conclusory, broad allegations and fails to offer any facts showing that she was aware of Sisson’s condition or that he needed medical assistance. The court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim against Baker for deliberate indifference to Sisson’s serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment under § 1983.

Qualified immunity

Baker contends that, even if plaintiff pleaded a plausible claim of deliberate indifference against her in her individual capacity, she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Viewing the facts in the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and for the reasons already articulated, the court finds that a reasonable officer would have understood that Sisson had a right to adequate medical care and that Baker’s acts and omissions constituted deliberate indifference to Sisson’s serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, at this juncture, Baker is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Baker’s motion to dismiss denied.

Sisson v. Piedmont Regional Jail Authority, Case No. 19-cv-602, March 19, 2020. EDVA at Richmond (Hudson). VLW 020-3-159. 19 pp.