Filed Date: Sept. 21, 2022
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On September 21, 2022, two men, one currently and one formerly incarcerated in Southern Regional Jail (SRJ) in West Virginia, filed this putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. They sought to represent a class of individuals imprisoned in SRJ facilities, which housed both pre-trial and sentenced individuals. They sued the former commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitations (WVDOC), the former warden for SRJ, and the former chief correctional officer at SRJ in their official capacities. Plaintiffs also filed claims against seven county commissions in West Virginia, Primecare Medical of West Virginia, unidentified correctional officers, and unidentified employees of the commissions and healthcare providers.
The lawsuit alleged overcrowding, unsanitary living conditions, and neglectful medical care in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and state law. In support of their claims, plaintiffs cited inadequate plumbing, nutrition, bedding, hygiene items, exercise time, lighting and prisoner safety. By depriving them of basic human necessities, permitting the squalid conditions alleged above and taking no action to remedy them, plaintiffs argued defendants violated their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs also argued that their constitutional rights were violated because defendants permitted these conditions despite those conditions not being in any way justified by a governmental interest. The case was assigned to Judge Frank W. Volk.
Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. The requested injunctive relief included enjoining defendants from engaging in the aforementioned unconstitutional practices and ordering them to implement and enforce constitutional policies. Plaintiffs also sought certification of two classes: Class A would include all currently incarcerated individuals who at any point between January 1, 2018, and the present were incarcerated at SRJ; and Class B would include all formerly incarcerated individuals who at any point between September 21, 2020, and the present were incarcerated at SRJ.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 7, 2022. The amended complaint added additional defendants, naming the acting commissioner of the WVDOC, the Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Homeland Security, Wexford Health Sources, and unidentified employees of Wexford. PrimeCare Medical and Wexford provided healthcare services to individuals at SRJ.
On November 18, 2022, the plaintiffs sought leave to file their second amended complaint to add a cause of action for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and to add a new subclass representative to bring the ADA claims. While the plaintiffs’ motion to amend was pending before the court, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, between December 9, 2022, and December 27, 2022. Before the court could rule on any motions, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction on March 22, 2023.
On April 5, 2023, the court directed the plaintiffs to file their second amended complaint, and denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint on procedural grounds, holding that their arguments were more appropriate when challenging the merits of the complaint. 2023 WL 2804901. The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on April 17, 2023, but the defendants moved to strike it the next day, as it differed from the proposed second amended complaint. The filed version of the complaint added three new defendants who weren’t included in the proposal, as well as additional prayers for relief.
The district court granted the defendants’ motion to strike on July 14, 2023, striking the filed second amended complaint from the record, and directing the plaintiffs to file another amended complaint in its place, which they did on July 17, 2023.
On July 31, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. The following month, on August 9, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class. Later that month, on August 24, 2023, the court dismissed one of the individual defendants at the request of both parties. Another defendant was voluntarily dismissed the following week.
The parties engaged in various discovery disputes, including motions to compel discovery and motions for sanctions. On September 6, 2023, the court denied the plaintiffs’ March 22, 2023 motion for a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to preserve documents. The court explained that a preliminary injunction was not appropriate because the plaintiffs were not bringing claims related to document preservation, but noted that any document destruction would “warrant the strongest medicine” since defendants were now on notice. 2023 WL 5751469.
On September 11, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss one of the plaintiffs as a sanction under Rule 37 because he failed to appear at multiple depositions. 2023 WL 5917758. The parties continued to engage in contentious discovery. The following month, on October 2, the magistrate judge held a hearing on discovery disputes and asked both parties to submit briefs on what sanctions should be issued.
On October 30, 2023, the magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs’ motions for a finding of spoliation and for sanctions against the defendants. The magistrate judge cited repeated motions to compel and court orders requiring the defendants to supplement their discovery responses, and described the defendants’ response as a “dereliction of duty.” Furthermore, the magistrate judge found that the defendants did not preserve all evidence pertaining to conditions of confinement or communicate with opposing counsel or the court about this loss of evidence, which was a “critical omission” that suggested the lost evidence was relevant to plaintiffs’ claims.
Ultimately, the magistrate judge concluded the defendants had intentionally destroyed evidence and recommended the district judge grant a default judgment for the plaintiffs as a sanction. Alternatively, the magistrate judge recommended either prohibiting the defendants from introducing evidence to dispute the plaintiffs’ testimony regarding the conditions of confinement and the deliberate indifference standard, or drawing an adverse inference against the defendants about what the destroyed evidence would have contained.
On November 9, 2023, the court held a settlement hearing with the plaintiffs and some of the defendants—specifically, the Commissioner and Acting Commissioner of the WVDOC, two employees of the WVDOC, and the Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Division Department of Homeland Security. About a week later, the court ordered that the plaintiffs and settling defendants must file a joint motion for preliminary approval of their settlement agreement by December 8, 2023. The court denied as moot defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the settling defendants, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Matters involving non-settling defendants remained in controversy, with discovery disputes persisting.
On December 8, 2023, plaintiffs and the settling defendants filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement. The proposed settlement provided for a $4,000,000 (and a $50,000 claims administration fund) to be distributed among class members, which court documents and contemporaneous news articles suggested might be as many as 9000 people. The agreement defined the class as any person held at SRJ for more than two days during the so-called "class period," from September 22, 2020 through the time of final approval of the settlement agreement. Funds would be distributed based on the length of time a class member was incarcerated. The court held a hearing on the motion on February 2, 2024, and, thereafter, directed the parties to file cross briefs as to whether, upon the Court's approval of the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs would be "prevailing parties" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1988. On July 19, 2024, the court granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing for October 25, 2024. 2024 WL 3488077. On October 25, 2024, the plaintiffs and the settling defendants appeared before the court for approval hearing on a joint motion for final approval of a settlement that is to be divided between eligible inmates who were incarcerated at SJR between Sept 22, 2020 and the date of the finalized settlement. The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e). The court dismissed the claims against settling defendants with prejudice on December 5, 2024.
In the meantime, litigation continued as to the non-settling defendants. First, on January 18, 2024, defendant PrimeCare Medical notified the court that it had filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and, therefore, that all proceedings against it in this action must be stayed; the court granted the stay on January 22, 2024, and, on March 13, 2024, dismissed without prejudice all of PrimeCare's pending motions in the case. On June 13, 2024, PrimeCare notified the court that the bankruptcy proceedings had concluded and, on June 19, 2024, it filed a motion seeking relief from the dismissal without prejudice of its motion to dismiss.
In addition, on March 13, 2024, the court ruled on the pending motions to dismiss of the non-settling defendants. It dismissed with prejudice the claims against the county commissions, reasoning that the commissions do not own, operate, maintain, or administer regional jails and that plaintiffs had not alleged a plausible basis for liability. It dismissed without prejudice the claims against Wexford, holding that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to show municipal liability because they did not allege an express policy or practices of sufficient duration and frequency to demonstrate actual knowledge of wrongdoing and deliberate indifference in failing to address it. In particular, the court reasoned that allegations of "a highly generalized pattern of ignoring sick calls and reprehensible beatings at the hands of correctional officers" did not give rise to municipal liability for Wexford. And as to the state law negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress and common law conspiracy claims against Wexford, the court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege the bases or elements necessary to support such claims. 2024 WL 1096906.
On July 30, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, bringing claims against the non-settling defendants only.
On September 19, 2024, defendant who was a medical provider employed or contracted by Wexford to provide medical services to pretrial detainees and inmates at SRJ filed a motion to dismiss. This motion to dismiss was granted on October 15, 2024. On October 2, 2024, Wexford Health Services filed a motion to dismiss. The court has not yet ruled on this matter.
On November 12, 2024, defendants PrimeCare Medical, Inc., PrimeCare Medical of West Virginia, Inc., and medical providers employed or contracted by PrimeCare filed motions to dismiss. The case against defendants was dismissed on December 5, 2024.
On November 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification concerning the PrimeCare defendants. Plaintiffs contended that the PrimeCare patients constitute a definable and ascertainable class. Additionally, the plaintiffs asserted that they satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(A), beginning with the numerosity requirement, as the class of more than 5,000 prior inmate patients is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. They also argued that the commonality requirement under 23(A) is met as the proposed class members share common questions of law and fact. Furthermore, the claims of the named plaintiff inmate patients are typical, meeting the typicality requirement. According to the plaintiffs, the named plaintiffs will adequately represent the class as they meet the standards necessitated by federal rule of civil procedure 23(a)(4).
The plaintiffs also argued that the proposed class meets the requirements for certification under federal rule of civil procedure 23(b)(3). Additionally, plaintiffs proposed issue-based classes that if the court were to decide against class certification. The court is yet to rule on this motion for class certification. This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Simran Takhar (7/18/2023)
Venesa Haska (11/15/2023)
Tessa Bialek (8/16/2024)
Renuka Wagh (1/1/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65368301/parties/rose-v-sandy/
Bailey, Charles R. (West Virginia)
Bailey, Robert Lee (West Virginia)
Bentley, Michael James (West Virginia)
Blevins, Alex S. (West Virginia)
Burns, Daniel J. (West Virginia)
Bailey, Charles R. (West Virginia)
Bailey, Robert Lee (West Virginia)
Bentley, Michael James (West Virginia)
Blevins, Alex S. (West Virginia)
Burns, Daniel J. (West Virginia)
Cyrus, Harrison M. (West Virginia)
Daugherty, Adam S. (West Virginia)
Etheredge, Christopher (West Virginia)
Flanagan, J. Victor (West Virginia)
Fuller, John P. (West Virginia)
Greve, Wendy E. (West Virginia)
Herrick, Jordan K. (West Virginia)
Mullins, Michael D. (West Virginia)
Murray, William E. (West Virginia)
O'Hare, Anne Liles (West Virginia)
Raupp, Peter J. (West Virginia)
Rector, Larry J. (West Virginia)
Rhea, Jaden P. (West Virginia)
Schumacher, David E. (West Virginia)
Shepard, James Benjamin (West Virginia)
Shuman, David Lewis (West Virginia)
Simonton, Mark (West Virginia)
Stevens, Elijah (West Virginia)
Taylor, Michael W. (West Virginia)
Underwood, Jared C. (West Virginia)
Vanston, Benjamin Brice (West Virginia)
Webb-Barber, Celeste E. (West Virginia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65368301/rose-v-sandy/
Last updated March 11, 2025, 11:08 a.m.
State / Territory: West Virginia
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 21, 2022
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two inmates seeking to represent two classes of individuals at Southern Regional Jail in West Virginia. Class A would include all currently incarcerated individuals who at any point between January 1, 2018, and the present were incarcerated at SRJ; and Class B would include all formerly incarcerated individuals who at any point between September 21, 2020, and the present were incarcerated at SRJ.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State
Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Homeland Security, State
The Raleigh County Commission (Raleigh), County
The Fayette County Commission (Fayette), County
The Greenbrier County Commission (Greenbrier), County
The Mercer County Commission (Mercer), County
The Monroe County Commission (Monroe), County
The Summers County Commission (Summers), County
The Wyoming County Commission (Wyoming), County
Wexford Health Sources Inc., Private Entity/Person
PrimeCare Medical of West Virginia Inc., Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: $4,050,000
Issues
General/Misc.:
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Sanitation / living conditions
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Sexual abuse by residents/inmates
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Policing: