Wonnum v. Way, III
N17C-01-291 ALR
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Chakirra Wonnum, an inmate at Baylor Women’s Correctional Institution, alleges Defendant Major Fred Way, the Security Superintendent, engaged in prohibited sexual encounters with her in his office in June 2015, causing physical and emotional injury. Way was later criminally convicted of Official Misconduct for those acts.
- DOC maintains a mandatory policy forbidding DOC employees from being alone with an inmate in a closed room (either prop the door open or have a third party present).
- Plaintiff sued Way (tort claims) and asserted gross-negligence claims against DOC supervisory officials (Warden Wendi Caple, Capt. Ramone Taylor, Counselor Faith Levy) for allowing or failing to prevent the closed-door encounters in violation of the DOC Mandatory Policy.
- Plaintiff sought to amend to add three DOC administrative officials (Robert May, John Sebastian, Phil Parker) and to assert claims against Caple for her alleged role in promoting/assigning Way to Security Superintendent; the State (on behalf of DOC officials) moved to dismiss and opposed amendment.
- The State argued dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity under 10 Del. C. § 4001 (State Tort Claims Act) and application of the public duty doctrine; the court considered Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 15(a) standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC supervisory defendants lose State Tort Claims Act immunity for failing to follow DOC Mandatory Policy (ministerial rule) | Wonnum alleges supervisors violated a non-discretionary, ministerial DOC policy (closed-door prohibition), so immunity should not apply | State contends supervisors are immune under §4001 because their acts were discretionary or otherwise protected | Court: Denied dismissal as to supervisory defendants — allegations could show ministerial failure overcoming §4001 immunity |
| Whether the public duty doctrine bars Wonnum’s claims against supervisory defendants | Wonnum contends the DOC Mandatory Policy created a specific duty to inmates and supervisors’ failure fits a special-duty exception | State argues claims arise from discretionary public duties and are barred by public duty doctrine | Court: Denied dismissal — because allegations could show ministerial conduct and thus fall outside public duty doctrine |
| Whether claims against DOC administrative defendants (promote/assign Way) are actionable under §4001 (promotions/assignments discretionary) | Wonnum alleges administrators negligently promoted/assigned Way given his prior misconduct, amounting to gross negligence | State argues promotion/assignment decisions are discretionary, not ministerial, and do not constitute gross negligence; public duty doctrine applies | Court: Granted dismissal — promotion/assignment decisions are discretionary; plaintiff fails to plead bad faith or gross negligence; public duty doctrine bars claims |
| Whether proposed amendment to add three administrative officials should be allowed | Wonnum seeks to add officials for their alleged role in promotion/assignment decisions | State argues amendment is futile because those officials are immune and claims are barred by public duty doctrine | Court: Denied leave to amend — amendment would be futile for same reasons claims against administrative defendants fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029 (Del. 1998) (standard that court accepts well-pleaded allegations and draws inferences for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (notice pleading principle regarding sufficiency of allegations)
- Jardel Co. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518 (Del. 1987) (gross negligence equated to criminal negligence standard)
- Hecksher v. Fairwinds Baptist Church, Inc., 115 A.3d 1187 (Del. 2015) (definition and standard for gross negligence)
- Farmer v. Brosch, 8 A.3d 1139 (Del. 2010) (Rule 15(a) amendment standard and discretion of court)
- Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 131 A.3d 806 (Del. 2016) (amendment may be denied as futile when amended pleading would be subject to dismissal)