John E. Staubs v. Dennis Dingus, Warden, 16-0300

Background

In November 2013 petitioner John E. Staubs, then incarcerated at McDowell County Correctional Center, was assigned (or ordered) to address a blocked sanitary main and while working a drain plug ruptured, spraying sewage on his face and body.
Staubs alleges he was not provided protective clothing or post-exposure sanitary safeguards, ingested sewage, got it in his eyes, and later developed a skin infection/rash.
In November 2015 Staubs filed a circuit-court complaint asserting § 1983 constitutional claims (Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments) and several state-law counts (cruel and unusual punishment, tort of outrage, invasion of privacy, negligent supervision/training/retention, reprehensible conduct, etc.).
Respondents (the Warden and West Virginia DOC) moved to dismiss based on qualified/official immunity and that the complaint pleaded only negligence.
The Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted the motions to dismiss on March 15, 2016; Staubs appealed.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Staubs pleaded only negligence (insufficient to state a constitutional violation) and he did not seek or file a motion for leave to amend his complaint.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Staubs alleged sufficient facts to state an Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment claim under § 1983	Staubs contended naming the constitutional violations and alleging exposure to sewage due to prison staff actions was sufficient to survive dismissal	Respondents argued the allegations amount to mere negligence and are barred by qualified/official immunity absent a statutory waiver	Court held allegations were merely negligence; baldly alleging constitutional violations without supporting facts fails to state a § 1983 claim — dismissal affirmed
Whether qualified/official immunity barred the state-law and constitutional claims	Staubs argued respondents’ conduct violated constitutional rights and therefore was actionable	Respondents asserted official immunity shields state agencies and officers from negligence claims absent waiver	Court held qualified/official immunity applied because claims pleaded were negligence-based and no waiver was alleged
Whether the circuit court abused discretion by dismissing without allowing amendment	Staubs argued he should be permitted to amend to plead sufficient facts	Respondents noted no motion for leave to amend was filed and court discretion governs amendments	Court held no abuse: record contained no motion to amend and litigant cannot claim error without seeking relief below
Standard of review for dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6)	Staubs relied on the lenient pleading standard (plausibility/not beyond doubt)	Respondents relied on controlling precedents distinguishing negligence from constitutional violations	Court applied de novo review and precedent, finding dismissal proper under governing standards

Key Cases Cited

McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995) (establishes de novo appellate review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
Hill v. Stowers, 224 W.Va. 51, 680 S.E.2d 66 (2009) (reiterating standard for appellate review of dismissals)
Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., 160 W.Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 207 (1977) (complaint should not be dismissed unless plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief)
Roth v. DeFeliceCare, Inc., 226 W.Va. 214, 700 S.E.2d 183 (2010) (applying pleading sufficiency principles)
Clark v. Dunn, 195 W.Va. 272, 465 S.E.2d 374 (1995) (qualified/official immunity bars mere negligence claims against state agencies/officers absent waiver)
Hess v. W.Va. Div. of Corrections, 227 W.Va. 15, 705 S.E.2d 125 (2010) (applies Clark immunity principle in DOC context)
Perdue v. S.J. Groves & Sons Co., 152 W.Va. 222, 161 S.E.2d 250 (1968) (trial court discretion governs leave to amend pleadings)
Lloyd’s, Inc. v. Lloyd, 225 W.Va. 377, 693 S.E.2d 451 (2010) (discussing standard and discretion for granting leave to amend)