Source: http://wv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180329_0000361.SWV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:47:15+00:00

Document:
RALEIGH COUNTY, et al. Defendants.
The Court has reviewed the Defendant Raleigh County, Raleigh County Sheriff's Department, and Steven Tanner's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint (Document 7) and Memorandum of Law in Support (Document 8), the Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Document 19), and Defendants Raleigh County, Raleigh County Sheriff's Office, and Steven Tanner's Reply to the Plaintiff's Response (Document 28). The Court has also reviewed the Plaintiff's Complaint (Document 1), Amended Complaint (Document 23), and all attached exhibits. For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the motions should be granted in part and denied in part.
Mr. Ali alleges that, throughout his employment with the Defendant Sheriff's Department, he was frequently subjected to racial slurs and other inappropriate treatment. Defendant Tanner would often call him “boy” or refer to him as a “thug, ” other white officers would place bets on whether he would make it through his training at the police academy, and he would often receive write-ups while white officers “who engaged in the same activity were not issued any form of reprimand or other discipline.” (Id. at ¶ 23-28.) On March 16, 2015, Mr. Ali was subjected to an interrogation regarding allegations by someone he had arrested. A white officer was present with Mr. Ali when he made the arrest, but was not subjected to the same interrogation and investigation. On the following day, “one day prior to the end of his one year probationary period, ” Mr. Ali was terminated from his employment by Defendant Tanner. (Id. at ¶ 38.) Mr. Ali appealed his termination to the Raleigh County Civil Service Commission, and attended a hearing on June 2, 2015. The parties were required to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Commission by June 22, 2015.
One of the officers approached Mr. Ali at gunpoint and asked him if he had a firearm. Although Mr. Ali responded that he did not have a firearm in the car, he was forced to the ground and handcuffed. After the Defendant officers had begun searching his car, Mr. Ali was asked to sign a consent form, and signed it, although it “had been previously completed by Defendants and/or agents of Defendants and was also incorrectly dated ‘6-22-2015.'” (Id. at ¶ 70.) After signing the form, the Plaintiff saw Defendant Epling “approach the back of the car carrying a mid-to-large sized brown or manila color envelope/package.” (Id. at ¶ 73.) Upon completing the search of the vehicle, the Defendants allegedly found illegal drugs in the trunk and a small amount of marijuana on the Plaintiff's cousin. Both the Plaintiff and his cousin were arrested. The Plaintiff was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and conspiracy to commit a felony. “After Mr. Ali was arrested, the State Trooper who had called [him] less than an hour earlier to confirm [he] was in Beckley, arrived at the scene and transported Mr. Ali to the Beckley State Police office, then to jail.” (Id. at ¶ 80.) According to Mr. Ali, the Defendants conspired together to wrongfully and maliciously arrest and prosecute him in retaliation for his intent to bring a discrimination lawsuit against Defendant Raleigh County Sheriff's Department and Defendant Tanner.
The Defendants interrogated Mr. Ali and his cousin and conducted a criminal investigation of the charges, during which time the Defendants proactively “took steps to hide  exculpatory evidence from Mr. Ali for nearly two years.” (Id. at ¶ 100.) “Over the nearly two years following Mr. Ali's arrest, Defendants failed and/or refused to disclose or produce material evidence related to Mr. Ali's case despite repeated requests by Mr. Ali's counsel.” (Id. at ¶ 103.) The Defendants also made various false claims regarding why they pulled the Plaintiff over in the Burger King parking lot. On February 13, 2017, Mr. Ali's first criminal trial began in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia. On February 15, after being informed that certain individuals in court had been seen speaking with potential defense witnesses in the hallway, the court declared a mistrial sua sponte. On May 22, 2017, a second criminal trial began on the same charges. On May 26, 2017, after a four-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding Mr. Ali not guilty on all charges. Not quite three months later, Mr. Ali filed this action.
Mr. Ali's amended complaint sets forth eleven counts: Count I - Race Discrimination, Count II - Color Discrimination,  Count III - Discrimination and Interference with Plaintiff's Right to Equal Benefit of the Law in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Count IV - Warrantless Arrest Pursuant to False Tip in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Count V - Conspiracy to Interfere with Constitutional Rights in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), Count VI - Neglect to Prevent Conspiracy to Interfere with Plaintiff's Rights, Count VII - False/Wrongful Arrest and Improper Investigation and Prosecution in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Count VIII - Abuse of Process, Count IX - Malicious Prosecution, Count X - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Count XI - Outrage.
The Raleigh County Defendants move for dismissal of the Plaintiff's amended complaint on several different grounds.
These Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed in its entirety as to the Raleigh County Sheriff's Department because the sheriff's department is not an entity that is capable of being sued. The Defendants state that “there is no organic authority in state law that creates a sheriff's department or sheriff's office, ” thus rendering the sheriff's office incapable of facing suit. The Plaintiff counters that previous case law from this Court is incorrect, and that a sheriff's departments in the state of West Virginia is capable of being sued. The Plaintiff contends that West Virginia Code § 29-12A-3(c), part of the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act, does not provide sheriff's departments with state immunity from lawsuits. The Plaintiff further argues that the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals “has not questioned” whether a sheriff's office is capable of facing suit.
[w]hile West Virginia law provides for the election of sheriffs and the appointment of sheriff's deputies, there is no organic authority in state law that creates a sheriff's department or sheriff's office. This stands in contrast to entities such as volunteer fire departments and emergency service organizations, the existence of which is provided for by state law and both of which qualify as political subdivisions under Section 29-12A-3(c) [of the West Virginia Code].
Webb v. Raleigh Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, No. 5:09-CV-01253, 2010 WL 3702648, at *7 (S.D. W.Va. Sept. 16, 2010); Tomashek v. Raleigh Cty. Emergency Operating Ctr., No. 2:17-CV-01904, 2018 WL 522420, at *2-3 (S.D. W.Va. Jan. 23, 2018) (Goodwin, J.); see also, Kowalyk v. Hancock Cty., No. CIV.A. 5:08CV181, 2009 WL 981848, at *2 (N.D. W.Va. Apr. 9, 2009). Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted and all of the counts filed specifically against the Raleigh County Sheriff's Department should be dismissed.
Defendant Tanner argues that the Plaintiff's Title VII claims in Counts I and II against him in his individual capacity should be dismissed. Defendant Tanner argues that the Plaintiff cannot pursue Title VII claims against him because he was the Plaintiff's supervisor, not employer, and as a supervisor was not liable in his individual capacity for Title VII violations. The Plaintiff counters that his Title VII claims are viable. He argues that courts outside the Fourth Circuit have held that supervisors can be liable under Title VII in their individual capacities, and seeks to have this Court adopt that view.

References: § 1981
 § 1983
 § 1985
 § 1983
 § 29
 v. 
 v. 
 v.