Coles v. Clarke et al, No. 3:2012cv00001 - Document 88 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 09/12/14. (kyou, )(copy mailed to Pro Se party)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
E IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I L >} SEP I 2 2014 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CLbhi\, U.S. DiSTHICT COURT RICHMOND, VA TIMOTHY LEE COLES, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v HAROLD CLARKE, 3:12CV01 et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Timothy Lee Coles, filed this 42 U.S.C. a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro § 19831 action. se, The matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants2 named in the Particularized Complaint and on motions filed by the parties. a series of For the reasons non-dispositive that follow the Court will Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss. 1 That statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute . . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law .... 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2 The Court identifies the individual defendants in conjunction with the discussion of the allegations and claims in the Particularized Complaint. See infra Part II. I I. "A motion sufficiency contests to of a STANDARD OF REVIEW dismiss under complaint; surrounding the Rule 12(b)(6) importantly, facts, applicability of defenses." it the merits does tests not the resolve of a claim, or the Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff s well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is plaintiff. Cir. in Mylan Labs., 1993); applies viewed see only Inc. also Martin, to factual considering a identifying pleadings motion conclusions, are Ashcroft v. Iqbal, The the Federal not light v. Matkari, 980 dismiss that, entitled 556 U.S. of 662, 952. to the 679 the 1134 (4th principle and are "a to choose they to This however, can because favorable 7 F.3d 1130, F.2d at allegations, to Rules most begin no more Procedure of by than (2009). Civil assumption court truth." "require [ ] only ^a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' notice of what the rests."' (second U.S. 41, Bell 47 order to ^give the defendant fair . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it Atl. alteration in Corp. in (1957)). v. Twombly, original) 550 (quoting Plaintiffs cannot U.S. 544, Conley v. satisfy 555 (2007) Gibson, this 355 standard with complaints containing only "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic Id. recitation of the (citations omitted). sufficient level," "to id. raise elements of a cause of action." Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts a right (citation to relief omitted), above stating the a speculative claim that "plausible on its face," rather than merely "conceivable." at 570. "A pleads factual reasonable U.S. at the plaintiff allows to draw the for the the Iqbal, the court defendant is liable 556 U.S. at 678 Therefore, 556). Id. plausibility when that that alleged." 550 facial content inference misconduct Corp. , claim has is (citing Bell Atl. in order for a claim or complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff the must "allege elements of [his or] & F.3d Co. , 324 Microsoft United Corp., her claim." 761, 309 765 F.3d 193, 213 the inmate's constitutional face of (4th his Cir. Hampton, 1151 advocate, 281 E.I. 2003) (4th (4th Cir. sua sponte claims the inmate complaint. 1997) DuPont de Nemours (citing Cir. J., 1278 Cir. Dickson Iodice 2002); v. v. 1978), it does developing not act statutory as and failed to clearly raise on the See Brock v. (Luttig, 775 F.2d 1274, (4th all Gordon v. 1147, 270, Cir. state while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, F.2d F.3d (4th Bass v. to Lastly, 574 289 sufficient 2002)). Leeke, States, facts Carroll, concurring); (4th Cir. 1985). 107 F.3d 241, Beaudett v. City 243 of II. In 2011, ("SUSP"). security Coles was incarcerated in Sussex II State Prison (Part. Compl. 1-2.)3 prison." Daniels, at SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS (IcL_ SI 10.) On August 4, 2011, SUSP, conducted a reclassification review "[D]ue to plaintiff being (12) was eligible and suitable security for Nevertheless, non-violent of I Coles. reduction" [s]ecurity facility offenders) (Id. months charge free, he for a security level possibly a transfer to a "Level . . . ." (minimum (Id. following a hearing conducted on August and f 10, 2.) 2011, Daniels and Roy Clary4 "arbitrarily . . . recommended" that Coles remain at Assistant $1 1, SUSP. Warden of (Id. SSIIP, SISI 3, approved 5.) Marie Vargo, then the that recommendation. (Id. 6-7.) Coles then filed an inmate grievance challenging refusal to reassign him to a lower security level prison. f Anton the Correctional Institutional Rehabilitation Counselor SISI 1-2.) A. SUSP is a "Level IV maximum 7.) Prison officials, including Harold Clarke, Gail the (Id. Jones, 3 Because Coles's original complaint failed to provide each defendant with fair notice of the which his or her liability rested, on July 2, 2013, the particularized complaint. Particularized Complaint facts and legal basis upon by Memorandum Order entered Court directed Coles to file a On July 22, 2013, Coles filed his (ECF No. 44), however, the Particularized Complaint only marginally deficiencies of the original complaint. improved the 4 In 2011, Clary served as the "Unit Manager of #3 Building" at SUSP. (Part. Compl. SI 1.) Gary Bass,5 and Wendy Hobbs either denied his grievance and/or failed to take favorable action on his appeal from the denial of the grievance. SSIIP. (IdL (Id. SISI 7-9.) Therefore, Coles remained at ^ 11.) On December 8, 2011, at 5:15 p.m., Coles was using a urinal at SUSP when fellow assaulted Coles. coma due Asnitch' to it inmate (Id. was SI D. 11.) said Thomas, Coles and who is a gang member, "was nearly beaten into a reported that plaintiff was a and such labeling had been disseminated throughout the SUSP's compound." Following the (Id. )6 assault, College of Virginia was x-rayed, due to (MCV), stitched plaintif f [' ]s Coles Richmond!,] up[,] left "was and eye taken the Medical Virginia where plaintiff scheduled socket, to for left plastic cheekbone, surgery and the 5 Harold Clarke is the Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") . (Part. Compl. SI 1.) In 2011, Gary Bass served as Chief of Operations of the Central Classification Services of the VDOC, and Wendy Hobbs Regional Director of the VDOC. (Id.) served as the Eastern 6 Coles alleges that he "was talked about being a ^snitch' throughout the compound of SUSP due his consistencies [sic] of filing numerous . . . complaints, grievances, civil suits, and criminal complaints on the SUSP's prison officials and administrative staffs . . . ." (Part. Compl. SI 4 (capitalization corrected).) Coles is far from clear as to who labeled him a snitch. His choice of language suggests this was a label applied by inmates "throughout the compound of SUSP" to Coles. (Id.) Coles fails to allege facts that plausibly suggest that any of the named Defendants labeled Coles a snitch as a means of retaliating against him for litigious propensities. Nor does Coles allege facts that plausibly indicate Defendants realized that snitch. 5 inmates described Coles as a cradle of the left side severely." (Id. SI 12.) SUSP. of plaintiff's nose fractured SI 13. ) (IcL Shortly thereafter, was Coles returned to Upon his return to SUSP, prison officials initially placed Coles in the infirmary. (Id.) On December 11, 2011, prison officials moved Coles from the infirmary to a segregation unit. (Id.) be On December 13, released back 2011, Roy Clary told Coles "that he would to [the] General Population . . . ." (Id.) Coles told Clary he feared for his safety in general population. (Id. ) Clary told institutional Clarke, that infraction if population. Coles Coles he Coles would be charged with an refused to return to the general (Id.) names Bass, the Hobbs, "Defendants"). (Id. following Clary, individuals Vargo, SI l.)7 and as Daniels defendants: (collectively Coles contends Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment8 by continuing to house him at SUSP after August 4, 2011. Defendants Offender are D. liable Thomas" "for because (Id. at 6.) the brutal they kept Coles contends that aggravated him at "the assault by hostile[,] 7 Although Coles mentions David B. Everett, the Corrections Operations Officer, at end of his Particularized Complaint, he fails to list him as a defendant in the first paragraph of the Particularized Complaint as required by the July 2, 2013 Memorandum Order. 8 "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, Const, nor amend. cruel and unusual VIII. 6 punishments inflicted." U.S. volatile environment of SUSP .... after being talked about as being a 'snitch' throughout the SUSP's compound." (Id. at 6- 7.) Coles demands $500,000.00. (Id^ at 7.)9 III. It is clear prison officials hands 833 the Eighth (1994) caused Amendment (quoting Farmer v. Cortes-Quinones 558 (1st Cir. 1988) ).10 by liability another for prisoner's the inmate provides See it is the Brennan, v. a duty on into at 842 of the constitutional responsible 834. The conscious disregard touchstone 825, Nevertheless, not every harm officers id. 511 U.S. Jimenez-Nettleship, translates corrections safety. emphasized that imposes "'to protect prisoners from violence at the of other prisoners.'" F.2d 556, that that ANALYSIS for for Supreme the Court intolerable deliberate risks indifference standard for Eighth Amendment claims: [A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be risk of serious harm exists, drawn that a substantial and he must also draw the inference. 9 On August 16, 2012, the Court received notice from Coles that the VDOC had Correctional Center. moved him (ECF No. 25, from at SUSP to Green-Rock 1.) 10 The Court's analysis borrows heavily from the decision in Bond v. Story, Nov. 17, 2011). No. 3:09cvl47, 2011 WL 5599390, at *3-4 (E.D. Va. Id. at 837. Thus, Farmer teaches "that general knowledge of facts creating a substantial risk of harm is not enough. prison official general facts inmate." must Johnson v. Quinones, (4th Cir. 511 U.S. address "[a]t sufficiently at 834 Rausch, what n.3. have point a risk for of Eighth it those 129 F.3d 336, inmate assault Amendment 525 v. Brown, Accordingly, that claim. Grieveson the does v. hands F. of fellow (E.D. support an Eighth F.3d may be inmates 74 538 v. "[a]ny time an 67, Anderson, and many Riccardo some risk that he Supp. not Thus, 511 "prisons are more." 2004). there is 883 risk commit (7th Cir. incarcerated, at to becomes purposes." is understood that, propensity Westmoreland Cir. Bruce, Inmates get there by violent acts, violence See a However, 375 F.3d 521, of between 145 F.3d 164, 168 (4th Cir. 1998) at 837); Rich v. substantial individual is victim inference the Supreme Court of the United States did not dangerous places. prisoners the 1997)) . In Farmer, U.S. draw and the specific risk of harm confronting the (citing Farmer, 340 also The 763, . Va. . . a ." 1995). Amendment 776-77 (7th 2008) . The Motion to Dismiss turns on whether Coles alleges that plausibly a risk of officials indicate assault to be to that Defendants Coles. actually aware The of knew courts a of have substantial found sufficiently facts prison substantial risk of assault "where custodians know of threats to specific prisoners posed by a specific source, or place prisoners in the same cell Whaley as v. an inmate Erickson, (citing Brown v. known 339 Budz, F. to have App' x violent 619, 398 F.3d 904, 622 propensities." (7th 914-15 Cir. (7th Cir. 2009) 2005)). Coles alleges no such facts. Additionally, an inmate may satisfy the deliberate indifference standard by alleging facts that indicate "the risk of serious harm [is] or assailant Supp. [is] at 75. substantial even though the precise victim not ascertainable." For example, Westmoreland, 883 F. a constitutionally significant risk of assault exists if "^rape was so common and uncontrolled that some potential victims dared not sleep [but] leave their nearest the original) "as the beds guard and spend station.'" (quoting Farmer, vagueness of a the night Id. 511 U.S. threat instead . . . would clinging (alteration at F.3d 563, 569 (7th Cir. 2008) (citation the bars omission in Nevertheless, the actual knowledge of impending harm decreases." 548 and 843-44). increases, to likelihood of Dale v. Poston, omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Coles grounds his contention that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference on the fact that: (1) SUSP "surrounded by hardened and violent offenders who [ ] are criminals with long . . . sentences" (Part. they kept him at Compl. SI 4 (spelling corrected)) and (2) (Id.) that inmates had labeled Coles as a snitch. Coles's first contention alleges merely that there was a risk of assault because the inmates with whom he was housed had been convicted Eighth Amendment Moreover, that of violent claim. Coles crimes. See Grieveson, does 538 not support other prisoners. significant an F.3d at 776-77. has not plausibly alleged any facts inmates at SUSP faced any 2006) That indicating risk of assault by Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879, 889 (7th Cir. (alteration in original; internal quotation marks omitted) (observing that "[i]n order to infer callous indifference when an official fails to protect a prisoner from the risk of attack, there must be a strong likelihood rather than a mere possibility that violence will occur") ; Westmoreland, 883 F. Supp. at 76 ("The fact that there were as many as 2.5 reported assaults per day in more January than prohibited does 1300 not permit inmates substantial was risk a conclusion subjected of harm that to solely each of the constitutionally by virtue of his incarceration in the City Jail.") Nor does the allegation that someone had labeled Coles as a snitch support deliberate would at inference that Defendants acted indifference because Coles does not allege permit inmates an a reasonable SUSP deemed 538 F.3d at 775-76 inference Coles to be that a Defendants snitch. See with facts that knew that Grieveson, (dismissing claim where prison officials were 10 not aware that the plaintiff "was perceived as a snitch by his fellow inmates"). obtained his More label as a importantly, snitch for Coles those circumstances, even if (Part. little reason to believe Compl. Defendants inmates at SUSP referred to Coles as a snitch, have that he harassing prison officials, rather than snitching on other inmates. Under states Coles's fellow knew SI 4.) that the Defendants would inmates bore him ill will for harassing prison officials. Because suggest Coles Defendants Motion to Dismiss has acted (ECF No. IV. Because Reconsider the failed with to allege facts deliberate that plausibly indifference, the 64) will be granted. OUTSTANDING MOTIONS Defendants Request to have Serve been served, Summonses (ECF Coles's No. Motion to will be 59) denied as moot. Coles greater has access preliminary prejudice moved to the injunction to Coles's for a preliminary prison (ECF law No. ability to pursuing a separate civil action. 11 injunction library. 61) will seek The be to motion denied injunctive gain for a without relief by The discovery moot.11 parties' outstanding motions (ECF Nos. 69, 76, 70, 72, seeking 79, 83) or will opposing be denied as The action will be dismissed. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Coles and counsel of record. /*/ /££/ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Date: Virginia September T^T 201 11 Coles fails to demonstrate that the discovery he seeks is necessary to resist the Motion to Dismiss. 12
]]>
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.
