CHARLESTON — The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed a lower court ruling, finding that while several state officials were operating under their official capacities, various forms of immunity protect them.
The ICA upheld a Sept. 14, 2022, order dismissing the claims of Hank Heckman and Loren Garcia, emphasizing that the actions of the respondents — former state Corrections Commissioner Betsy Jividen, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeff Sandy and Attorney General Patrick Morrisey — fell within the scope of their official employment duties, according to the April 15 opinion authored by Chief Judge Thomas Scarr.
"I intend to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia," Jeremy B. Cooper, an attorney with Blackwater Law who represents Heckman and Garcia, told The West Virginia Record. "While I respect the reasoning of the Intermediate Court, I do not believe the law of qualified immunity in West Virginia is so broad as to allow state officials to escape civil liability for engaging in the capricious imprisonment of citizens without cause, and in violation of the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto enactments."
The decision did not contest the validity of what is known as the Phalen ruling, which remains a critical precedent for future cases involving similar issues.
Heckman and Garcia appealed the Kanawha Circuit Court's dismissal of their claims against the West Virginia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (WVDCR) and other state officials.
The case centers on the implementation of a policy affecting good time and parole eligibility for individuals re-incarcerated following the revocation of their supervised release.
This policy change led to the rearrest and re-incarceration of the petitioners, who had previously been released on parole.
In 2010, Heckman was indicted for sexual offenses in West Virginia and was later placed on probation and supervised release. After violating probation, he was reincarcerated and then released on parole in 2020.
Similarly, Garcia was indicted in 2013 for child abuse, and sentenced to prison and supervised release, but after committing robbery, her supervised release was revoked, leading to further incarceration until her parole in 2019.
Both Heckman and Garcia were released early due to good time credits, which were later disputed and revoked by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (WVDCR).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, inmates, including Heckman and Garcia, earned good time credits for contributing to mitigation efforts. However, WVDCR later deemed them ineligible for these credits and revoked them based on new policy changes, resulting in their re-arrest.
Heckman, Garcia and others challenged this retroactive application of the new policy in habeas corpus actions, arguing it violated ex post facto principles.
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the inmates, leading to their release and the dismissal of their habeas petitions.
In October 2021, Heckman and Garcia, representing a class of similarly affected individuals, filed a civil lawsuit seeking declarations, injunctions and damages for various constitutional and statutory violations related to their re-arrest and incarceration.
The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, citing various immunities and legal defenses. In September 2022, the circuit court granted the motions to dismiss, concluding the defendants were protected by absolute and qualified immunities and other legal defenses.
This decision prompted the appeal.
Scarr wrote that the court must determine what immunity the respondents were entitled to in the case. The court found that Morrisey and Sandy were entitled to absolute immunity for their policy-making and legislative acts. However, Jividen’s signing of arrest warrants, which led to the petitioners' rearrest and reincarceration, was deemed a discretionary act, thus subject to qualified immunity.
To determine if Jividen's actions violated clearly established legal rights, the court examined prior cases and concluded that the legal standards at the time of Jividen's actions were not clearly established, thus entitling her to qualified immunity.
The court granted absolute and qualified immunity to the respondents, protecting them from liability for their actions in the case. Other claims by the petitioners, including those related to statutory immunity and constitutional validity, are not addressed due to the ruling on immunity.
West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals case number: 22-ICA-163