Garrett v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 3:19-cv-00185

Five plaintiffs (Garrett, Richardson, Blue, Reid, Ojo) allege constitutional and related tort claims arising from separate incidents while confined at Eastern Regional Jail (dates in 2017–2018).
Plaintiffs sued the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOC) and 19 unnamed "John Doe, Correctional Officer" defendants; the complaint asserts Eighth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, negligent training, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The matter was referred for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); the magistrate judge reviewed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
The court concluded the DOC is not a "person" under § 1983 and thus cannot be sued on that statute, recommending dismissal with prejudice as to DOC.
The court found the unnamed John Doe defendants were not properly pleaded (Rule 10 and Rule 8/Twombly fair-notice concerns) and recommended dismissal without prejudice as to those defendants; motions for leave to proceed IFP and joinder were terminated as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the West Virginia Division of Corrections can be sued under § 1983	DOC violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and is liable under § 1983	A state or its agencies are not "persons" under § 1983	DOC is not a § 1983 defendant; dismissal with prejudice
Whether claims against unnamed John Doe correctional officers are adequately pleaded	Plaintiffs listed many employees and contend discovery is needed to identify names	Failure to name parties violates Rule 10 and fails to give fair notice under Rule 8/Twombly	Claims against John Does dismissed without prejudice for lack of properly named defendants
Whether Plaintiffs stated a § 1983 claim against any identified person	Plaintiffs alleged Eighth and Fifth Amendment violations and related torts	No identified individual defendant who acted under color of state law; Gomez requires person + color of state law	Complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim as to any named person; dismissal (as above)
Disposition of motions to proceed IFP and to join complaints	Move to proceed IFP and to join Ojo's separate case	N/A	Motions terminated as moot

Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (1992) (describing § 1983's purpose to deter state actors and provide relief)
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (1980) (§ 1983 requires allegation that a person deprived plaintiff of a federal right under color of state law)
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (a State and its officials sued in their official capacities are not "persons" under § 1983)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must provide enough factual matter to state a plausible claim; Rule 8 fair-notice standard)
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (§ 1983 case law on relief principles)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (procedural rule that failure to file objections waives de novo review)