Henderson v. Clarke et al, No. 3:2012cv00904 - Document 38 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 2/24/2015. Copy mailed to Pro Se. (sbea, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Henderson v. Clarke et al Doc. 38 IN THE FOR THE UNITED STATES EASTERN Richmond RONALD L.T. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA FEB 2 4 2015 Division OUnn. u^. OlS IBICT COURT HENDERSON, RICHLinNin Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. HAROLD W. CLARKE, 3:12CV904 et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Ronald L. Henderson, and forma pauperis, matter is Defendant by before the Ruth Hale Defendants Department of a inmate proceeding pro filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.^ Court (ECF No. Harold Virginia W. on the 25) to Dismiss the ("VDOC"), Director A. of Harvey, Warden at Wallens Ridge State Prison, Randall Warden at Wallens Ridge State Prison, and C. the the The filed and the Motion to Dismiss Clarke, Corrections Motion se by filed Virginia Assistant Mathena, the Fred Schilling, the ^ The 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. Dockets.Justia.com Head of ECF No. the Medical Department of the VDOC ("VDOC Defendants, 20) I. In his HENDERSON'S Complaint, COMPLAINT Henderson alleges the following in support of his claims for relief: On 6 May 2010, Prison in at 7:30 PM at Wallens Ridge State cell in POD B4, Officer R. Gardner . . . intentionally trapped the plaintiff's right hand in the cell door closure assembly, causing a puncture wound that penetrated his third finger of his right hand and laserated [sic] the ligaments and tendons associated with primary nuckle [sic] separating muscle and motor control of the finger. The medical department applied a bandaid at 8:15 PM. The medical department X-rayed the right hand on 18 May. The follow up for medical treatment was 49 days from the incident, and at that time Dr. Thompson refused care. The plaintiff has been in extreme pain since the time of the assault and has loss of the use of his hand as a result of this pain, his hand presently has limited range of motion and control all under extreme pain. (Compl. 12, Defendants ECF No. violated 1.)^ his Henderson Eighth claims Amendment^ that right the "not VDOC to be ^ By Memorandum Order entered November 26, 2014, the Court dismissed Stanford, the claims against and an Unknown Officer. Defendants (ECF No. Gardner, Thompson, 37.) ^ The Court employs the pagination assigned to the Complaint by the CM/ECF docketing system. The Court corrects capitalization in quotations from Henderson's Complaint. the '' "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, Const, nor amend. cruel VIII. and unusual punishments inflicted." U.S. subjected to cruel and unusual punishment" denying him adequate medical care (id. (id. at 14), at 15) . and by Henderson also vaguely alleges that Defendants Clarice, Mathena, and Hale violated the plaintiff's right to access to the court . . . denied access to a law library; denied access to a legal professional to prepare this claim; denied access to persons trained in the law; denied access to materials to prepare or send this claim (stamps and envelope) to this Court; [and] denied him recourse for criminal acts in state court obstructing justice and denying due process. (Id. at 14.) "violated Finally, the retaliation Henderson states that the VDOC Defendants plaintiff's for filing right this to claim be . Henderson seeks monetary damages and a free . . from ." meaningless (Id. at 15.) preliminary injunction in the form of a transfer from Red Onion or Wallens Ridge Prison.^ (Id. at 16-17.) Henderson alleges additional claims. no supporting facts For the reasons stated below, for his the Motions to Dismiss will be granted. II. Pursuant to the Court must dismiss STANDARD OF REVIEW Prison Litigation Reform Act any action filed by a determines the action (1) "is frivolous" ("PLRA") this prisoner if the Court or (2) "fails to state ^ The Court notes that Henderson was housed in Red Onion State Prison at the time he filed his Complaint. (ECF No. 3; Compl. 5.) He is now housed in River North Correctional Center. (ECF No. 33.) Because Henderson is no longer housed in Red Onion or Wallens Ridge, his demand for injunctive relief in the form of a transfer (4th Cir. 2009) 186 is moot. Rendelman v. (citations omitted). Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, a claim on which § 1915(e)(2); includes see claims relief 28 may U.S.C. based upon § be granted." 1915A. '''an The 28 first indisputably U.S.C. standard meritless legal theory,'" or claims where the "'factual contentions are clearly baseless.'" 1992) The Clay v. Yates, (quoting Neitzke v. second standard dismiss under Fed. "A motion sufficiency contests of is R. to a 809 Williams, the Civ. P. Arthur R. 952 Miller, Federal Rule 427 319, (E.D. 327 for a Va. (1989)). motion 12(b)(6) importantly, facts, (4th Cir. U.S. standard under applicability of defenses." 980 F.2d 943, 490 417, to 12(b)(6). dismiss the Supp. familiar complaint; surrounding F. the it merits does of a tests not 1992) or v. (citing 5A Charles A. Practice and Procedure § resolve claim, Republican Party of N.C. the the Martin, Wright & 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. 1993); applies viewed Mylan Labs., to Inc. factual considering a identifying pleadings Ashcroft V. the see also Martin, only conclusions, in motion are Iqbal, not light v. Matkari, 980 dismiss that, entitled 662, to 679 952. however, can because favorable 7 F.3d 1130, F.2d at allegations, to 556 U.S. most choose they the are the 1134 (4th This principle and "a to begin no assumption (2009). to court more of by than truth." The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[ ] only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' notice of what the rests.'" . Bell Atl. (second alteration U.S. 41, with complaints 47 "formulaic Id. . in v. containing of level," id. 570. pleads "A reasonable face," Corp., 550 U.S. at to facial that that misconduct alleged." defendant fair U.S. 544, Conley v. satisfy and of 555 (2007) Gibson, this standard conclusions" a cause of 355 or relief above stating the a plausibility allows the Iqbal, speculative claim the when court defendant is that the 556 U.S. at 678 in order is Id. plaintiff to draw liable Therefore, 556). a action." rather than merely "conceivable." content inference the a plaintiff must allege facts omitted), claim has factual "labels elements right 550 cannot Instead, (citation "plausible on its only the (citations omitted). a 'give (quoting Plaintiffs raise to Twombly, original) (1957)). "to order claim is and the grounds upon which i t Corp. recitation sufficient at . in the for the (citing Bell Atl. for a claim or complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff the must "allege elements of [his or] & Co., F.3d 324 Microsoft Corp., United States, her claim." 761, 309 facts 765 F.3d 289 F.3d 270, (4th 193, 281 sufficient Bass v. Cir. 213 E.I. 2003) (4th (4th Cir. to state DuPont de Nemours (citing Cir. all 2002); 2002)). Dickson v. lodice v. Lastly, while complaints, 1978), the Gordon it does v. not Court Leeke, act as liberally 574 the F.2d construes 1147, inmate's pro 1151 (4th advocate, sua se Cir. sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed to clearly Carroll, raise 107 concurring); (4th Cir. on the 241, F.3d face 243 v. City Beaudett of his (4th of complaint. Cir. See 1997) Hampton, 775 Brock (Luttig, F.2d 1274, v. J., 1278 1985). III. In order to state a ANALYSIS viable claim under 42 U.S.C. plaintiff must allege that a § 1983, a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States. Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, Cir. 1998) vicarious (citing 42 liability plaintiff must is [allege] U.S.C. § 1983). inapplicable See Furthermore, to Vinnedqe that the v. ... § doctrine § 1983 actions). that 550 of v. F.2d Iqbal, 926, respondeat Accordingly, affirmatively Total 658 (4th "[bjecause 1983 suits, a that each Government-official defendant, Ashcroft Gibbs, v. 145 F.3d 653, through the official's own individual actions, Constitution." Dowe show 556 928 U.S. (4th superior has violated the 662, is the official (noting inapplicable the plaintiff must "that (2009); 1977) Cir. 676 allege charged to facts acted personally Vinnedge, in the deprivation of the plaintiff [']s rights." 550 F.2d at 928. Henderson fails to allege any facts that plausibly point to any conduct or on Schilling rights. in the part the Henderson, of Defendants alleged instead, Clarke, deprivation of Mathena, any Harvey, constitutional seeks to hold the VDOC Defendants responsible under a theory of respondeat superior.^ That theory of liability fails to provide a basis for relief under § 1983. ® In his Complaint, Henderson alleges only supervisory liability without any personal involvement by the VDOC Defendants. For example, Henderson alleges that Clarke, as the Director of the VDOC, "is legally culpable for acts or omissions of the staff of the Virginia Department of Corrections . . . and the lack and disregard for care and welfare shown to persons incarcerated at Wallens Ridge State Prison." (Compl. 7-8.) Henderson's allegations against Mathena, Harvey, and Schilling are similarly vague and fail to allege that the VDOC Defendants personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Buried within a timeline of his grievance history, in his "Memorandum in Support of Response to Motion to Dismiss," Henderson states for the first time that "an informal complaint was directed to assistant warden A. Harvey on May 7, 2010." {Mem. Supp. Resp. 4, ECF No. 30.) Similarly, Henderson lists in his timeline "appeal to Health Services Director Fred Schilling in Richmond." (Mem. Supp. Resp. Attach. Ex. A, at 4, ECF No. 32-1 (capitalization corrected).) Henderson's vague mention of the Defendants' names in a grievance timeline, without any supporting facts, fail to sufficiently indicate that Defendants Harvey or Schilling personally participated in the deprivation of Henderson's constitutional rights. See Nelson v. Hill, No. 3:08CV603, 2010 WL 1005320, at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2010) (citation omitted) (explaining that "the Court will not . . . substantiate claims found in the . . . complaint with allegations lurking in the host of submissions Plaintiff deposited with the Court"). Accordingly, Clarke, the Mathena, Henderson's Motion Harvey, claims to Dismiss filed by and Schilling will be against these Defendants Defendants granted,"' and will be dismissed without prejudice. Henderson alleges courts. Specifically he bring denying a her Commonwealth States." Ruth Hale denied him access "was the Wise County and who refused criminal oath of that complaint to uphold Virginia (Compl. ^ While an claims 11.) the and Hale to the to whom the assault was reported to, Magistrate, to that against laws the and Officer R. Gardner, constitution Constitution of the of the United Henderson's claim against Defendant Hale inmate's letters to prison administrators may establish a basis for § 1983 liability, the plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly posit "that the communication, in its content and manner of transmission, gave the prison official sufficient notice to alert him or her to 'an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.'" Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 993 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). Henderson must allege that Defendants Harvey and Schilling "knew of a constitutional deprivation and approved it, turned a blind eye to it, failed to remedy it, or in some way personally participated." Id. at 994 (citing Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995)). Henderson's Complaint manner of lacks any detail transmission of about his the content, communications frequency, to or Defendants Harvey or Schilling. Thus, Henderson's vague allegations fall short of permitting the conclusion that his complaints placed Defendants Harvey and Schilling on sufficient notice of an excessive risk of harm to Henderson's health or safety. See id. Even if Henderson had alleged sufficient facts about Harvey or Schilling, "a superior's after-the-fact denial of a grievance falls short of establishing § 1983 liability." DePaola v. Ray, No. 7:12cv00139, 2013 WL 4451236, at *8 (W.D. Va. July 22, 2013) (citing Brooks v. Beard, 167 F. App'x 923, 925 (3rd Cir. 2006)). lacks legal merit. citizen lacks prosecution Colo. V. Linda R.S. a or Rock, Henderson's It is well established that a judicially nonprosecution Gonzales, v. Richard P., denied Motions Defendants' as 748, 410 Town 767 n.l3 U.S. Hale of the Castle (2005) (quoting 619 (1973)). 614, is in legally frivolous. Defendant Male's Motion to Dismiss will be granted. Defendants' be interest another.'" Defendant IV. granted. of 545 U.S. claim against Accordingly, cognizable "'a private moot. to CONCLUSION Dismiss (ECF Henderson's claims 20, 25) (ECF Nos. Motions to Transfer Nos. 18, and the action will 23) be will will be dismissed. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Henderson and counsel of record. /s/ .0. Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: February 24, 2015
]]>
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.
