Deputies sued for using excessive force

Where a man alleged Buchanan County deputies punched him with a closed fist, slammed his head into a door frame and attempted to choke him, and that he did not pose a threat at the time, the deputies’ qualified immunity motions were denied.

Background

Cody J. Donovan asserts various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, arising out of interactions with local law enforcement officers and a regional jail authority. He contends that the Buchanan County sheriff’s office, former deputy Shannon McCoy and deputy Brandon Hall violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by using excessive force and denying medical treatment. He also alleges state-law claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress, or IIED.

As to the Grundy police department and chief Aaron Fletcher, he claims only the denial of medical treatment. Finally, as to Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority, he claims the denial of medical treatment, as well as state-law claims for false imprisonment and IIED. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss.

Buchanan County defendants

“In Virginia, federal district courts have consistently held that … a sheriff’s department” is an “arm[] of the Commonwealth of Virginia and that [it], therefore, [is] entitled to invoke the defense of immunity from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.” Accordingly, the Buchanan County sheriff’s department is immune from suit and is dismissed.

As to McCoy and Hall, they claim they are entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force and deliberate indifference claims. According to the amended complaint, Donovan had not committed a serious crime at the time force was used. Thus, under these circumstances, I find that the plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the particular force used — punching him with a closed fist in the face and back of the head, slamming his head into a metal door frame and attempting to choke him — was excessive and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

At the time the force was deployed, further, it is not established, based solely on the factual allegations contained in the complaint, that Donovan’s actions posed a threat. I therefore find determining if the right allegedly violated was clearly established is premature at this stage of the litigation.

Donovan also alleges that the Hall and McCoy were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. However Donovan has not alleged any facts that show that McCoy or Hall knew of and disregarded any particular serious medical need, or that they intended to punish the plaintiff in any way.

As to the false imprisonment claim, nothing suggests that the officers did not have a lawful basis for holding Donovan. As for the IIED claim, the allegations do not clear the high bar necessary to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Finally the claim for malicious prosecution is not ripe because Donovan cannot demonstrate that he obtained a favorable termination of the underlying criminal prosecution, given that the prosecution remains pending.

Grundy defendants

While a town may be sued directly under § 1983, municipal liability may only be established where the alleged constitutional deprivation was motivated by an official custom or policy. Here, Donovan has not alleged any facts related to an official custom or policy, let alone one that motivated the purported constitutional violations. Accordingly, I will dismiss all claims against the Grundy police department.

As to Fletcher, Donovan has not alleged any facts that give rise to a constitutional violation. Moreover Fletcher was not a supervisor of the deputy sheriffs who took the plaintiff into custody or who allegedly violated his constitutional rights. And Donovan does not set forth any facts that show Fletcher was present when the alleged violations occurred or he had an opportunity to intervene.

Jail authority

Municipal liability may be established only if the alleged constitutional deprivation was motivated by an official custom or policy. Donovan has not alleged any facts that relate to a custom or policy, certainly not ones that motivated the purported constitutional violations. Donovan has also asserted state-law claims, but they too must fail. I find persuasive two opinions from this district holding that jail authorities are entitled to sovereign immunity.

Buchanan County defendants’ motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part. Grundy defendants’ motion to dismiss granted. Jail authority’s motion to dismiss granted.

Donovan v. Buchanan County Sheriff’s Office, Case No. 1:21-cv-00005, May 19, 2022. WDVA at Abingdon (Jones). VLW 022-3-217. 24 pp.