Jason Sanders v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, John and Jane Does, unknown employees or agents of the above entity
This text of Jason Sanders v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, John and Jane Does, unknown employees or agents of the above entity (Jason Sanders v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, John and Jane Does, unknown employees or agents of the above entity) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
JASON SANDERS,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-00305
WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, JOHN AND JANE DOES, unknown employees or agents of the above entity,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 12) and Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Its Motion to Dismiss (ECF 16). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss and DENIES as moot the Motion to Stay. BACKGROUND The Complaint in this case alleges that, after Plaintiff Jason Sanders was arrested and placed in Western Regional Jail, two correctional officers beat Plaintiff without provocation. See ECF 1, Compl. ¶¶ 10–34. Plaintiff then filed this action against the correctional officers and their employer—the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“WVDCR”). See id. ¶¶ 2–3. The WVDCR now asks the Court to dismiss the claims against it pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing, among other things, that it is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.1 See ECF 13 at 1. ANALYSIS
The Eleventh Amendment generally bars an individual from suing a state or a state agency in federal court. See Roach v. W. Va. Reg’l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth., 74 F.3d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1996). There are, however, three exceptions to this rule: “First, Congress may abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it both unequivocally intends to do so and acts pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority.” Second, the Ex Parte Young exception applies to a suit against a state official acting in violation of federal law. Third, a state may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Wicomico Nursing Home v. Padilla, 910 F.3d 739, 746 n.2 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Lee-Thomas v. Prince George’s Cnty. Pub. Schs., 666 F.2d 244, 240 (4th Cir. 2012)) (cleaned up). The WVDCR asserts that it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because it is a state agency. See ECF 13 at 3–4. While Plaintiff signals his disagreement, see ECF 14 at 3, he neither contests that the WVDCR is an arm of the state nor argues that any of the exceptions to immunity apply to his claims against the WVDCR. He merely points out that the Ex Parte Young exception applies to his claims against Defendants John and Jane Does. See id. at 5. Since this has no bearing on the WVDCR’s immunity, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
1 “[T]he Fourth Circuit has not yet resolved whether a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity is properly considered pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6).” A. M. v. Demetro, No. 2:22-00421, 2024 WL 218139, at *1 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 19, 2024). This is of no consequence here, as Plaintiff’s claims against the WVDCR must be dismissed regardless of whether the Court considers the WVDCR’s Eleventh Amendment challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6). CONCLUSION Since the WVDCR is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF 12) and DENIES as moot its Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Its Motion to Dismiss (ECF 16). Since the only remaining defendants have not been identified, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to file a pleading on or before November 14, 2025 explaining whether he intends to pursue his action against these defendants. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.
ENTER: October 30, 2025
i om ROBERT C. CHAMBERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jason Sanders v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, John and Jane Does, unknown employees or agents of the above entity, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jason-sanders-v-west-virginia-division-of-corrections-and-rehabilitation-wvsd-2025.