Lawsuits Continue Against Central Virginia Regional Jail

Two federal lawsuits are proceeding against the Central Virginia Regional Jail for civil rights violations of inmates.  One case is brought by the mother of an inmate who died in CVRJ custody allegedly due to lack of medical care.  Thornhill v. Aylor, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00024, (WD.Va.) The other case is brought by a former inmate who claims she had medication withheld while at jail that resulted in a psychotic break and hospitalization at Western State Hospital in Staunton.  Jenkins v. Aylor, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00046 (W.D.Va.).  Both cases are pending before Judge Conrad in the Charlottesville Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.  The jail, located in the Town of Orange, serves the surrounding counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison and Orange.

In February 2016, Judge Conrad granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the Thornhill case.  The Court dismissed the class action claim after finding there was insufficient "commonality" among the proposed class members.  The Court dismissed the individual claims against some of the defendants, but allowed others to go forward after finding that there was "sufficient factual allegations to support the claim that there was an official policy of deliberate indifference at CVRJ, specifically based on [the Superintendent's] inactions as its policy maker."  The Court determined that arguments as to sovereign immunity and qualified immunity would be heard at a later stage of the litigation.

Similarly, in the Jenkins case, the plaintiff brought the suit as a class action, but the defendants have filed motions to dismiss the class action claim and portions of other claims.  Those motions were heard by the Court on March 23, 2016.  An interesting issue that was argued at the hearing was whether the Central Virginia Regional Jail Authority is entitled to sovereign immunity.  Defense attorney argued that the five counties that comprise the authority each have sovereign immunity and would retain sovereign immunity if they operated their own separate jails; therefore, there should be immunity for the regional jail authority.  Plaintiff's counsel, however, argued that the authority itself does not meet the all of the standards for sovereign immunity, even thought its constituent members would have immunity.  The Court reserved judgment and will issue rulings on the motions at a later date.

You can read more about the lawsuits here and here.

Magistrate Judge's Opinion Prompts Inspector General Investigation Into Attorney General's Office

An article in yesterday's Daily Progress stated that "Virginia' inspector general is still investigating whether an attorney general staffer wrongfully advised energy company lawyers in a on going federal court battle with regional landowners seeking natural gas royalties."

The federal lawsuit is a class action between landowners and two energy companies regarding $28 million in natural gas royalties which are currently held in escrow accounts by the State of Virginia.  Virginia law allows energy companies, in some circumstances, to siphon natural gas below multiple tracts of land.  The royalties are then placed in escrow pending a determination of who owned the gas and who is entitled to the royalties.  The Attorney General's office is involved to defend the constitutionality of the Virginia Gas and Oil Act.

The investigation into the Attorney General's office appears to have been prompted by a comment from Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent expressing shock that an attorney from the AG's office was "actively involved in assisting" the energy companies "with the defense of these cases, including offering advice on and providing information for use on the motions before the court."  This comment was made in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation granting in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

This story has been the subject of numerous newspaper reports and editorials.

It will be interesting to see the inspector general's report.  It is not uncommon for lawyers representing different parties in a case to share information with each other, especially if their interests align.  Yet, the criticism in this case seems to be that the AG's office was improperly taking sides in a civil case and the suggestion (by some) that the AG's office was being influenced by campaign contributions to current Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli.