Rountree v. Robinson et al, No. 7:2018cv00318 - Document 23 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 9/27/2018. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U.s.DIST./. > IRT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN TH E UM TED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIV W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W RGINIA R O A N O K E D IW SIO N PIPER A .R O U N TR EE , SEP 27 2212 4t. 11 . ùM.. . C A SE N O .7:18C V 00318 Plaintiff, M EM OM NDUM OPIM ON A.DAW D ROBINSON,c & , By:Glen E.Conrad Senior United StatesDistrictJudge D efendants. PiperA .Rountree,a Virginia inmate proceeding pro K ,broughtthis civilrights action under 42 U.S.C.j 1983,alleging thatofficials atFluvanna CorrectionalCenter for W omen (GTCCW '')wereinterferingwithherrightto accessthecourtbychangingacomputerusepolicy. The casewasdismissed withoutprejudice afterthe courtdid notreceive Rotmtree'srequired linancialinformation on tim e. Rotmtree hasm oved to reinstate the case and has also filed a tçmotion to stay''thatthe courtconstnzes asamotion forinterlocutory injunctive relief. After review ofthe record,the courtwillreinstate the case,butwillgrantthe requested interlocutory reliefonly in partand willrequire Rountree to consentto paym entofthe filing fee before any furtheraction in thecase. 1.M otion to Rehzstate Virginia Depm ment of Corrections (çGVDOC'') Chief of Corrections Operations,A. David Robinson,issued a mem orandllm on Jtme 7,2018,notifying a1lVDOC OperationalUzlit Rountree v. Robinson et al H eads that starting in thirty days, inm ates w ould no longer be allow ed to save docllm ents to Doc. 23 prison law library computers. Any inmate's legaldoclxmentsshould beprinted outforheratno costandthendeleted. On July 6,2018,thecourtdocketedRountree'sj 1983complaintandher motion seeldng to enjoin the defendantsfrom implementing this computerpolicy. Rotmtree Dockets.Justia.com claim ed that without computer access to edit and complete existing drafts, she could not complete pleadings for an intended civilrights complaintabouther religious rights before the stattlte of limitations would expire in Augustas to som e of her claim s. The Hon.Robert S. Ballou,United StatesM agistrate Judge,reviewed RountTee'sallegationsand issued an orderon July 6thatstated: To allow the courtto weigh and decide whether Rotmtree's alleged sim ation warrants interlocutory relief,it is ORDERED that the W arden of FCCW is DIRECTED to(1)respondwith appropriateaffdavitsandevidencetohermotion forinterlocutory injunctivereliefwithin 7 daysfrom theentry oftllisorder;and untilfurtherorderofthiscourt,(2)to preserveany digitalcopiesofRotmtree's legaldocllments thatare currently stored on an FCCW computer;and (3)to preserve any papercopiesofRountree'slegaldocllm entsthatexceed the nm olmt ofproperty sheisallowed to storeon site. Order2-3,ECF No.4.1 The court'àinitialorderin thiscasedirected Rotmtreetoprovidefinancialdocumentation asrequiredtmder28 U.S.C.j 1915(b),orthecasewould be dismissed withoutprejudice. As stated,the courtdid notreceive the required docllm entation by the August 15,2018,deadline, and dismissed the case withoutprejudice on August 22,2018. In Rotmtree's motion for reinstatem ent, she provides evidence that she delivered the fnancial docllm ents to prison authoritiesform ailing to the courton August6,before the deadline. Herexhibitsindicate that prison ofscials'approvalsofhersimultaneously delivered postage with/ aw alrequestwere not completed untilAugust21,the postage waspaid on August22,and them ailingwaspostmarked on thatdate. W ith no evidence contradictingRountree'scontention thatshetim ely delivered the fm ancialdocllmentation to prison om cials form ailing to the couzt see Houston v.Lack,487 U.S.266(1988),hermotionforreinstatement(ECFNo.18)willbegranted. 1 The defendantsresponded. By orderentered July 20,2018,the undersigned construed the defendants' responseto Rountree'scontentionsasamotion forstlmmaryjudgmentand granted hertwenty daystorespond, whichshedid.The defendantsreplied,and Rountreemoved tostliketheirreply. 2 II.M otion forInterlocutoryRelief Sincethe court'spreviousorderrequiring officialsto save Rotmtree'scom puter-created doctlm ents,which they did,they have continued to allow herto save,edit,and create docllm ents onthecomputer: a49-pageresponsebriefand 98pagesofexhibits(ECF No.11),themotionto strike(ECF No.16),and themotionsforreinstatement(ECF Nos.18,20). On September11, 2018,thecouridocketedanew,45-pagecivilrightscomplainttmder42U.S.C.j 1983,with 500 pages of exhibits,Rotmtree v.Aldridge, Case No.7:18CV00447, alleging various religious rightsclaim s. In support of the instant m otion for interlocutory relief regarding computer usage, Rountreesubm itsam emorandllm fronlRobinson,dated August30,2018,stating asfollows: Effective October1,2018 offendersw illno longerbe abletoprepr e,save,and/or printusingthe1aw library computers. The 1aw library computerswillbewiped of a11offenderlegaldocum entsand the softwareutilized to prepare,save,and print doctunentswillberemoved. Thism emorandllm serves as a 30-day notifcation to the offenderpopulation of the upcom ing changes to 1aw library computers and the requirement that a1l offender legal docum ents be rem oved from the 1aw library computers prior to October 1, 2018. Offenders will be provided a copy of their personal legal documentsstored on thelaw library com putersatno cost. Any docllm entslefton thecomputersfollowing this30-dayperiodwillbe deleted. In orderto enstlrethatoffendersareprovided thenecessary resotlrcestotypelegal docllmentsj,)typem iterswillbe provided for offender use in the 1aw library. Offenderaccessto the 1aw librmy typem itersto prepare legaldocllm entswillbe in accordance with the facility'sestablished protocolsforthe daily operation of the law library. Offender use of the typewriters will be tmder the general supervision ofthe1aw library supervisor. M ot.Ex.1,ECF No.22-1. Rotmtree allegesthatwithoutthe ability to editexisting com puter docllmentsand create and save future ones,she willbe denied m eaningfulaccessto the courts. Specifically,sheallegesthatshe needscomputeraccessto make tm specified am endmentsto her new j1983 complaintandto preparediscovery requestsin thatcmse. Asrelief Rotmtree asks the courtto stay enforcem ent of either the Jtme 7 or August 1,2018 m emorandllm bnning inm atesf' rom using 1aw library computersto create and save legaldocllm ents and to ensttrethat Rountreecan continue doing so. Theparty seeldngapreliminary injtmction mustmakeaclearshowing tçthatheislikely to succeed on them erits,thathe islikely to sufferirreparablehnrm in the absence ofprelirninary relief,thatthe balance of equities tips in his favor,and that an injllnction is in the public interest''W interv.Naturalkes.Def.Council.Inc.,555U.S.7,20(2008).Theparty'spleading m ustsatisfy allfourfactors. 1d.at20. Section 1983 permitsan aggrieved party to file a civilaction againsta person foractions taken tmdercolorofstate law thatviolated ilisconstitm ionalrights. See Cooperv.Sheehan,735 F.3d 153,158(4thCir.2013).Prisonprogrnmstoassistinmateswithprepadngcourtdocllments are constitutionally sufficientif they afford inmates&&a reasonably adequate opportunity to fle nonfrivolouslegalclaim schallenging theirconvictionsorconditionsofconfinement.'' Lewisv. Casey,518 U.S.343,356 (1996). An inmate'sconstimtionalrightto accessthecourtdoesnot require the prison to provide her with evel'y type of legalservice orm aterialthatshe believes necessary for her litigation. 1d.at 354-356. V ague and conclusory allegations thatthe legal assisfnnce provided willcause m ere delays orinconveniencesto an inmate's legalwork cnnnot supportadenialofaccessclaim.Stricklerv.W aters,989F.2d 1375,1383(4thCir.1993). Rotmtree'smotion doesnotstate grotmdsshowing a liielihood thatshe willsucceedin herclaim thatthe new policy deprivesherofherrightto accessthecourts,orthatshe willsuffer irreparable hann in the absence of interlocutory relief. At the most, Rountree describes inconveniencesand delaysthatshem ay encotmterwhen using atypewriterinstead ofacom puter to create docllments. She failsto predictany irreparable hnrm to eitherofherpending lawsuits 4 from thenew policy,andiecourtGndsholikelihoodofsuchhsrm.Inthepresentcase,shehak ftled berrespohse to the defendanl'argumentsand a moEon to se e thelrreply. ln hernew cle,No.7:18CV00447,shebasGled a lengthy complaintO d mnny ee bits,alleging clnlm q bnœz on events 9om 2016 to the present. She falls * idenify any exm cted,pee ssible amendm entsshemlghtmnketo tlptplendlng.Forherfuturereferenceln theseM gadon eforts, . ' t. she has a1* receiveb, or w11l receive, coste ee paper printouts 'of a11 computer-created documentsshehajsavedto theFCCW 1aw librarycomputers. Forthe stated reasons,Rounkee fails to show a likellhood ofsuccess on the merits or A epam ble hlnn- two required fadors for interlocutory relief under W inter. Therefore,the courtwilldenyhermotlontotheextentthatitseekstoenlointhedefendants9om implemene g thechangesdese bed intheOctober1,201% memorN dum. To allow theCOM toweigh and dedde Rounkee'sunderlyhg claimsform rmanentinjuncive mllefshowever,the COIUIwitl requiretl)edefendants(a)topreserveany' digltalcopiesofRounkee'slegaldocumenl thatare currently storedonanFCCW computer;K d(b)topreserveanypapercopiesofRountee'slegal : documentq thatexceed the amount of prop> that she ls allowed to store on site. An appropdateorderw111entertEsday. n e clerk * 11 send the paë eF coples of this m emorandum opM on and the accompanyhgorder,viaFu oremail. ENTER:This/l# dayofSeptember,2018, senioruktqdstatesoi- ctJudge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
