SALISBURY, Md. - WBOC has learned that a federal lawsuit accusing Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis of ignoring warning signs before a former deputy sexually assaulted a woman is moving forward, with Lewis and the State of Maryland denying responsibility for her injuries.
The civil suit was first filed by a woman, identified only as J.A., who was sexually assaulted by former deputy Steven Abreu in a Kohl’s parking lot in 2022. The suit currently lists Sheriff Lewis, the State of Maryland, and Abreu as defendants.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin rejected those defendants' requests to dismiss the claims against them. The judge also dismissed Wicomico County as a defendant and consolidated the woman’s two related lawsuits, according to court documents obtained by WBOC.
J.A. filed a consolidated complaint on Sept. 21. Lewis and Maryland answered on Oct. 16, disputing allegations that the sheriff knowingly allowed a dangerous deputy to remain on patrol.
Abreu’s criminal case
(Wicomico County Sheriff's Office)
As WBOC previously reported, a Wicomico County Circuit Court jury found Abreu guilty on 29 of 34 counts in December 2024 following a five-day trial.
The convictions included one count of first-degree rape, three counts of second-degree rape, six sex-offense counts, three counts of unlawful sexual conduct by a law enforcement officer, four counts of false imprisonment, and 12 counts of misconduct in office.
Prosecutors accused Abreu of using his authority as a deputy to sexually assault three women in 2022. Abreu assaulted one woman after offering her a ride in his patrol vehicle and another after returning to a home where he had responded to a service call.
Abreu testified in his defense, with his attorneys arguing the encounters were consensual.
On May 29, 2025, Abreu was sentenced to life in prison plus a consecutive 30 years.
Woman alleges abuse of police authority
J.A.’s civil lawsuit centers around encounters with Abreu in late October 2022.
According to her complaint, she had finished work and was sitting in a vehicle outside the Kohl’s department store in Salisbury around 1 a.m. on Oct. 26 when Abreu approached in a marked sheriff’s patrol vehicle.
She says Abreu, who was uniformed and armed, requested her identification and phone number, ordered her out of the vehicle, and sexually assaulted her during what he presented as a search. The complaint alleges he continued the assault after directing her back into the vehicle.
J.A. says she did not consent and feared resisting an armed deputy.
The suit alleges Abreu then called her and sent sexual text messages. On Oct. 28, she says, he pulled her over while she was driving home from work, grabbed her face, and ordered her not to tell anyone about their encounters.
The next day, according to the complaint, Abreu waited outside her workplace in his patrol vehicle but did not approach because her fiancé was driving her.
Claims against Lewis
J.A. initially sued Abreu and Wicomico County in federal court in October 2023. She filed a second lawsuit in Wicomico County Circuit Court on Oct. 24, 2025, naming Sheriff Lewis, the State of Maryland, the county, and Abreu. That case was moved to federal court in December of 2025.
The claims against Lewis focus on his decisions to hire, train, supervise, and retain Abreu.
The suit alleges Lewis previously declined to hire Abreu. J.A. says Lewis then lowered hiring standards amid staffing shortages, however, and ultimately chose to employ him. It cites remarks attributed to Lewis in a Fox News Digital article about recruiting difficulties and needing “warm bodies on patrol.”
“It’s very difficult to recruit good quality candidates,” Lewis’ quote, included in the lawsuit, reads. “So what do we find ourselves doing? Hiring people that didn’t wow us during the interview. But we need warm bodies on patrol still in these vacancies that we have within our agencies. And inevitably, what does that do? It lowers our standards.”
The woman also alleges Lewis knew about reported inappropriate sexual touching involving Abreu during an academy training exercise before authorizing him to patrol alone.
Other alleged warning signs included a complaint that Abreu made sexual remarks during a traffic stop and followed a woman home. The lawsuit alleges Abreu tried to conceal that encounter by miscategorizing body-camera footage so it would be retained for less time.
J.A. further alleges Lewis learned Abreu allowed a friend to drive his marked patrol vehicle with its emergency lights and sirens activated, but did not terminate him.
“Despite having knowledge of these events, Defendant Lewis did not terminate Defendant Abreu’s employment because Lewis ‘felt that the deputy would ‘straighten out,’” the lawsuit reads.
Judge allows claims against sheriff to proceed
Lewis filed a motion to dismiss J.A.’s complaint against him in January of 2026, according to court records.
In her September opinion, however, Judge Rubin found the allegations sufficient enough to support claims that Lewis acted with deliberate indifference and gross negligence. The judge pointed to the alleged prior misconduct, Lewis’ alleged awareness of it, and his alleged failure to suspend Abreu, end his solo patrols, or require corrective training.
Rubin declined to dismiss the claims against Lewis on qualified-immunity or state public-official-immunity grounds at that stage of the suit, though said Lewis could raise qualified immunity again after a more complete factual record was brought forth.
The judge’s opinion emphasized that J.A. would ultimately have to prove the material facts.
Rubin specifically noted a dispute over whether Lewis knew about the academy incident. The Fox News article featured Lewis saying he lacked prior knowledge of the incident, contrary to the complaint’s allegation.
The judge also rejected part of the woman’s broader allegations, finding claims of a widespread unconstitutional practice throughout the Sheriff’s Office insufficient. Other grounds for her state constitutional claim survived, however.
Wicomico County was dismissed from the case as the judge concluded Lewis and Abreu were acting as state officials or employees, not county ones, in their functions..
The opinion also limited the theory that Maryland could be held responsible as Abreu’s employer. Rubin concluded the alleged Oct. 26 sexual assault and subsequent calls and texts fell outside his employment’s scope, while the allegations concerning his Oct. 28 traffic stop and Oct. 29 conduct plausibly were within it.
Lewis and Maryland respond
In their Oct. 16 answer, Lewis and Maryland denied that their conduct caused J.A.’s alleged injuries.
They admit the complaint’s allegation that an instructor documented Abreu inappropriately touching a woman’s breasts during academy training. However, they deny that Lewis was informed or knew about it before Abreu began solo patrols.
They also admit Lewis learned Abreu allowed a friend to operate a marked patrol vehicle, but say the incident resulted in disciplinary action. The sheriff’s and state’s answer goes on to deny the allegation that Lewis knew about the earlier inappropriate traffic-stop encounter, Abreu following a woman home, or an attempted cover-up while continuing to keep Abreu employed.
Lewis maintains in the response that command staff learned of allegations against Abreu and terminated his employment.
The state’s and the sheriff’s defenses include qualified immunity, public-official immunity for certain state claims, and limits on damages under state law. The answer was filed on behalf of only Lewis and Maryland, not Abreu.
“Defendants did not cause and/or contribute to Plaintiff’s injuries and/or damages, if any exist,” the response to J.A.’s complaint reads.
Where the case stands
The consolidated complaint names Maryland, Lewis, and Abreu as defendants and contains 10 counts against them.
Six concern Abreu’s alleged constitutional violations, assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The remaining counts seek to hold Lewis and Maryland responsible through negligence, supervisory-liability, and state constitutional claims.
J.A. requests a jury trial, damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. The complaint seeks damages exceeding $75,000 but does not specify a total demand.
Lewis’ and the State of Maryland’s answer to the complaint on Oct. 16 is the most recent filing in the case. WBOC will continue to monitor the lawsuit for developments as they become available.
WBOC reached out to Sheriff Lewis and the Sheriff’s Office on Friday for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
