Wall v. Stevens et al, No. 7:2016cv00373 - Document 66 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 3/26/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE u.a D1sr.QQURT ATDANM LLE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR THE WES Rowxou TERN DIol STRI vls CT lox OFWRGINIA G M W W A LL, Plaintiff, MA2 26 2218 JULIgcouxExCLNK sv:jtm/ û DEPUW CLE C ivilA ction N o.7:16-cv-00373 M EM OR ANDUM OPINION N.STEVENS,etaI., D efendants. By: H on.Jacltson L.Kiser Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge Gary W all,a Virginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,com menced this action ptlrsuantto 42 U.S.C.j1983againstdefendantsassociatedwiththeRedOnionStatePrison(ççROSP'').Currently pendingareDefendants'M otionsforSummaryJudgment(<itheM otions'')EECF Nos.48,511and PlaintiffsM otionforSpoliation EECFNo.551.TheM otionshadbeenreferredtoaUnitedStates M agistrate Judge fora reportand recommendation ptlrsuantto 28 U.S.C.j636(b)(1)(B)(the G&R&R'')EECFNo.644,andPlaintifftimelyfiledhisobjectionsEECFNo.65j.Forthereasonsthat follow,IwillrejectPlaintiff's objections,adoptthe R&R in itsentirety,and deny Plaintif:s M otion forSpoliation asm oot. B ackground Plaintifffiledthecurrentcivilaction on August10,2016and,afteram endm ents,healleged thatDefendantsviolated variousfederaland statelawsby retaliating againsthim ,imposing cruel d unusual punishment, not providing adequate process, negligently investigatig his Wall v. Stevens et al accusations,and being willfully and wantonly negligent. By Orderentered on Jmmary 30,2018, Doc. 66 1granted s'immaryjudgmentin favorofDefendants on allbutPlaintiff'sclaim ofretaliation againstDefendantsA.Vaughan,N.Stevens,L.Mccowan,andA.O'Quirm,andPlaintiff'sclaim 1 Dockets.Justia.com forsupelwisory liability againstDefendr ts Lt.C.Gilbertand Sgt.J.Hall. Plaintiffalleged that Defendants Vaughan, Stevens, M ccowan, and O'Quinn retaliated against him for filing complaints and grievances againstthem for making him subm itto llnnecessary strip searches, denying him showers and recreation,and filing afalse disciplinaty charge againsthim . Plaintiff alleged thatDefendantsGilbertand Hallare liable assupervisorsfortheretaliation because they failed to preventthe retaliations. ln support of their M otions, Defendants subm itted the affidavit of J. M esser, the InstitutionalOmbudsman atROSP. M esser stated thatshe received a regular grievance from Plaintiff on Febnzary 19, 2016. M esser said that this Regular Grievance complained that DefendantsStevensaltd Vaughan denied Plaintiffshowerson January 17,20,29,and 30,2016, fornoncompliance with the strip-search procedtlre. M esser said thatPlaintiffalso complained aboutretaliation,an investigation,and strip-search proceduzesin segregation. M esserstated that sherejectedthegrievanceonintakeon February 19,2016,andretlzmeditto Plaintiffbecauseit contained m ore than one issue. M esser instructed Plaintiffto rewrite and resubm itthe grievance in Gçsimplerterms.'' Plaintiffdid notresubmitthe grievance and,instead,filed an appealofher intake decision. TheRegionalOmbudsmanupheld M esser'srejection.M esserassertsthatshe did notreceive any otherregular grievances from Plaintiffconcerning the issues in thislawsuit and Plaintiffhadnotsubm itted any grievancesforLevel11response. M eanwhile,Plaintiffstated thathe resubm itted a grievance containing only one issue as instructed by M esserwithin the 30-day timefrnme required underVDOC Operating Procedlzres (&(OP''). Plaintiffdid notspecify which oneissuehe complained ofin thisgrievance. Plaintiff admitsthatheneverreceivedaLevelIresponsetothisresubmitledgrievanceandhedidnotpursue 2 aLevel11appeal.Hecontendsthathe did nothavetheinform ation necessaryto filean appealto LevelII. Plaintiff also presented various Offender Requests and letters from early 2016. In the m itings,Plaintiffcom plainedthathewasnotprovidedwith lnformalComplaintform s,grievances had disappeared without responses,his attempts to utilize the grievance process to exhaust adm inistrative rem edies were being ççhindered,thwarted, or denied in som e fashion,'' and a grievance was Gçdestroyed.'' Plaintiffprovided severalletters to the cotlrtbutfailed to present evidenceof:(1)whatclaimswereinthelost,destroyed,orhinderedgrievances;(2)thatheacmally mailedtheletters;or(3)thatDefendantsreceivedthem. IntheR&R,themagistratejudgerecommendedgzantingtheM otionsbecauseofPlaintiffs failuretoexhaustunderthePrisonLitigationReform Act((TLRA. ''). I1. StandardsofR eview A.R&R a report pursumlt to 28 U.S.C. j 636(b), the magistrate judge makes only recomm endations to the court. The recom mendations have no presumptive weight, and responsibility form aking a finaldetermination rem ainswith the court. M athewsv.W eber,423 U.S.261,270-71(1976).ThecourtischargedwithmakingaX novoreview ofthoseportionsof thereporttowhich speciticobjectionismade,andmayitaccept,reject,ormodify,in wholeorin part,thefindingsorrecommendations''ofthemagistratejudge. 28 U.S.C.j 636(b)(1). In the absenceofspecifcobjectionstothereport,thecourtisnotrequired to giveany explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v.Davis,718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). Objectionsthatonly repeatargumentsraised before amagistratejudge are considered general objectionstotheentiretyofthereportandrecommendation,whichhasthesnmeeffectasafailtlre toobject.Veneyv.Astrue,539F.Supp.2d841,845(W .D.Va.2008). B . Sum m ary Judgm ent FederalRuleofCivilProcedure56(a)providesthatacourtshouldgrantmlmmaryjudgment Gtifthe m ovantshowsthatthere isno genuine dispute asto any m aterialfad and the m ovantis entitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.'' &1Asto materiality,...golnly disputesoverfactsthat m ightaffectthe outcome ofthe suitunderthe governing law willproperly preclude the entry of summaryjudgment.'' Andersonv.Libel'tvLobby,Inc.,477 U.S.242,248(1986). Thedispute overamaterialfactmustbegenuine,Gtsuchthatareasonablejury could return averdictforthe nonmovingparty.''L4.;seealsoJKC Holdin:Co.v.W ash.SportsVenttlresslnc.,264 F.3d459, 465(4th Cir.2001).Assuch,themovingpartyisentitledtosummaryjudgmentiftheevidence supporting a genuine issueofmaterialfactSçismerely colorable orisnotsignificantlyprobative.'' Anderson,477 U .S.at250. The moving party bears the burden of proving thatjudgment on the pleadings is appropriate. Celotex Corp.v.Catrett 477U.S.317,322-23 (1986).Ifthemovingpartymeets this blzrden,then the nonm oving party m ustsetforth specifc,adm issible facts to dem onstrate a genuineissueoffactfortrial.M atsushitaElec.Indus.Co.v.ZenithliadioCorp.,475U.S.574, 587(1986).ln consideringamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmustview therecordasa whole and draw al1reasonable inferences in the lightm ost favorable to the nonmoving party. Celotex,477U.S.at322-324;Shaw v.Stroud,13F.3d 791,798(4th Cir.1994).However,the nonmoving pal'ty may notrely on beliefs,conjecture,speculation,orconclusory allegationsto defeatamotionforsllmmaryjudgment.Baberv.Hosp.Corp.ofAm.,977F.2d 872,874-75(4th 4 Cir.1992).Theevidencesetfol'th mustmeettheççsubstantiveevidentiary standardofproofthat would apply atatrialon themerits.'' M itchellv.Data Gen.Corp.,12 F.3d 1310,1315-16 (4th Cir.1993).1 Section 1983 &To stateaclaim tmderj 1983,aplaintiffmustallegetheviolationofarightsecuredby the Constimtion and laws ofthe United States,and mustshow thatthe allçged deprivation was committedbyaperson actingundercolorofstatelaw.''W estv.Atkins,487U.S.42,48(1988). Notably,a plaintiffmustsufficiently allege a defendant'spersonalactorom ission leading to a / deprivation ofa federalright. See Fisherv.W ash.M etro.AreaTransitAuthor.,690 F.2d 1133, 1142-43(4thCir.1982),abrocatedonothercrotmdsbyCty.ofltiversidev.M cLauchlin,500U.S. 44(1991).Negligentdeprivationsarenotactionablelmderj1983.See.e.g.,Danielsv.W illiams, 474U.S.327,330(1986);Pinkv.Lester,52F.3d73,77(4thCir.1995). 111. Exhaustion ThePLRA providesthatççgnjo action shallbebroughtwith respecttoprison conditions tmder(42U.S.C.j 19834,oranyotherFederallaw,byaprisimerconfinedin anyjail,prison,or othercorrectionalfacility untilsuch administrative rem edies asare available are exhausted.'' 42 U S C.j 1997e(a). (dllilxhaustion ismandatory underthe PLRA and ... 'unexhausted claims 1Plaintiffisproceeding pro #qand,thus,entitledto aliberalconstruction ofthepleading. See-e.g., - Ericksonv.Pardus,551U.S.89,90-95(2007).However,(Cprinciplesrequiringgenerousconstructionof prosecomplaintsarenot...withoutlimits.''Beaudettv.CityofHampton,775F.2d 1274,1278(4thCir. 1985). TheFourth Circuithasexplained that(sthough pro K litigantscarmot,ofcourse,be expected to frame legalissueswith the clarity and precision ideally evidentin thew ork ofthosetrained in law,neither candistrictcourtsberequiredtoconjureupanddecideissuesneverfairlypresentedtothem.''1d.at1276. (çA courtconsideringamotion(forsummaryjudgmentlcanchoosetobeginbyidentifyingpleadingsthat, becausethey areno m orethan conclusions,arenotentitled to the assumption oftruth.'' Ashcroftv.lqbal, 556U.S.662,679(2009). cnnnotbebroughtincourt.''Jonesv.Bock,549U.S.199,211(2007)(citingPorterv.Nussle,534 U.S.516,524(2002)).;G$g' Tlhelanguageofsection 1997e(a)clearlycontemplatesexhaustionprior to the com m encem ent ofthe action as an indispensable requirem ent,thus requiring an outright dismissal(oftmexhaustedclaims)ratherthanissuingcontinuancessothatexhaustionmayoccur.''' Capenterv.Hercules,No.3:10cv241,2012W L 1895996,at*4(E.D.Va.M ay23,2012)(quoting Johnson v.Jones,340 F.3d 624,628(8th Cir.2003)).Theexhaustion requirementCEallowlsja prison to addresscomplaintsaboutthe program itadministersbefore being subjected to suit, reduclesjlitigation totheextentcomplaintsaresatisfactorilyresolved,andimprovelesjlitigation thatdoesoccurby leading to thepreparation ofausef'ulrecord.'' Jones,549 U.S.at219.Failtlre to exhausta11levelsof administrative review is notproperexhaustion and willbaran inm ate's j 1983action.W oodfordv.Ngo,548U.S.81,90(2006). Ordinarily,PLRA exhaustion ism andatory. SeeM oorev.Bennette,517 F.3d 717,725, 729(4th Cir.2008);Lancfordv.Couch,50F.Supp.2d 544,548(E.D.Va.1999).Nonetheless, courts are Sçobligated to ensure that any defects in adm inistrative exhaustion w ere not procured f' rom the action orinaction ofprison officials.'' Aauilar-Avellaveda v.Terrell,478 F.3d 1223, 1225(10th Cir.2007), .seeKabav.Stepp,458F.3d 678,684 (7th Cir.2006).An administrative remedy isnotavailable (çifa prisoner,through no faultofhisown,wasprevented from availing him selfofit.''M oore,517 F.3d at725. VDOC Operating Procedure (ç$OP'') j 866.1,Offender Grievance Procedure,is the m echnnism used to resolve inm ate com plaints and requires that, before subm itting a form al grievance, the inm ate m ust demonstrate that he has m ade a good faith effortto resolve the grievance inform ally through the procedures available at the institution to secure institutional 6 servicesorresolve conlplaints.Ifthe informalresolution effortfails,the inm ate mustinitiate a regulargrievancebyfilling outtheappropriateform .Priortoreviewingthesubstantiveclaim sof the grievance,prison officials conductan çtintalce''review ofthe glievance to ensure thatitm eets thepublished criteriaforacceptalwe. Ifthe grievance doesnotm eetthe criteria foracceptance, prison officialscomplete the Gtintake''section ofthe grievance and retum itto the inm ate. The inm ate m ay seek review ofthe intake decision by sending the grievance form to the Regional Om budsm an.On theotherhand,ifthegrievancem eetsthecriteriaforacceptance,itislogged on theday itisreceived. Therearethreelevelsofreview foran acceptedregulargrievance.TheFacility UnitHead ofthe facility in which the inm ate is confined is responsible forLevel1teview. A dissatisfied inm ate m ay appealto Level1I,which is conducted by the RegionalAdministrator,the Health ServicesDirector,orthe ChiefofOperationsforOffenderM anagem entServices. The Level11 response inform sthe offenderwhetherhe may ptlrsue an appealto Level111,which isthe final levelofreview. IV . A nalysis lnhisobjections,Plaintiffallegesthat:(1)hehadpresentedsufficientevidenceinhisFirst Affidavit(ECF No.37-12,ResponsetoAffirmativeDefense (ECF No.534,and hisM otion for Spoliation (ECF No.55j'to show thatthe grievance process wasintentionally thwarted and irlhibited by prison administrators;(2)he did resubmithis grievance with one issue and he requestedthatrapid-eyevideofootagebesavedtosupporthisclaim;(3)l'tisresubmittedgrievance wasneverlogged anditw asnotreturnedwith f' urtherinstnzctiohs;instead,itwasGSTRASHED !!!''' and (4)having multiple issues in one grievancewasnotaproperreason to rejectitbecause retaliation claim s,by theirvery nature,encom passinorethan one issue. Objs.2 (citingM oore, 517F.3dat730). Atthethreshold,Plaintiff'sfirstthreeobjectionsmerelyrepeatargtlmentsraisedbeforethe magistratejudge,which sherejected.Thus,thoseobjectionsareconsidered generalobjectionsto theentirety ofthereportandrecommendation,which hasthe snmeeffectasa failum to object. Veney,539F.Supp.2dat845.M eanwllile,themagistratejudg:didnotdirectlyaddressPlaintiff's fourth objection.InM oore,theFourthCircuitheld: M oore(qmaintaihsthatthedistrictcourtermdinnzlingthathefailedtoexhausthis available adm inistrative remedieswith regard to llisretaliation claim .Thedistrict courtdeterminedthatM oorefailed to properly exhausthisadministrativerem edies because the only grievance he subm itted concerning the facts of that claim contained multipleissuesand failed tonnme any ofthe defendantsin thiscase. W ehave already concluded thatthe latterground isnota properbasisfor Iinding thatrem edieshave notbeen exhausted,and we conclude thatthe former basis is notvalid either. A tits essence,M oore's grievance w as a com plaintabout being plnished in variouswaysforconductthathe had neverbeen intbrmed ofor charged with. Underthese circllm stances,requiring M oore to grieve each ofthe alleged com ponents ofhisptm ishm ent separately w ould have prevented him from fairlypresentinghisclaim initsentirety.Thus,weconcludethatM oore'sgrievance wasproperandthe districtcourterred in dismissinghisretaliation claim . 517 F.3d at 730. However,even though M oore held that inmates need not file individual grievances on each retaliatory actasserted in a plaintiffs j 1983 retaliatlon claim,the Fotu'th Circuitdidnotoverrulethe(Gsinglel-qissuenlle.''Seeid.at729(GçgW )econcludethattherejection ofthe grievance asviolating the nzleprollibiting a single grievance f' rom being used to complain oftwoseparateincidentscertainlywaswellfotmded''). W allis a frequentlitigatorand iswellacquainted with the exhaustion procedure. In the rejected grievance,Plaintiffcomplained thatOffcersStevenson and Vaughan retaliated against him by denying show ersand recreation on severaloccasionsin January,buthe also challenged the 8 strip-search procedure by dedaring mw onstitutional anal exnm inations and/or the denial of showersand recreation based on analexnminations.Therefore,M essercorrectly returned W all's grievance forfailureto follow the grievanceprocedure' ssingle-issuel'ule,becauseheviolated the rule by including aretaliation claim with another,differentclaim . Furthermore,W all'sappealof the intake decision did not exhaust his retaliation claim , because he had another available adm inistrative rem edy- refling the deficientregular grievance. W all claim s he did so and receivednoresponse.No responseto agrievance doesnotexcusetheinm ate'sfailureto exhaust, however. W hen the time allotted underthe procedure for a LevelIresponsehad passed,W all could havepursued an appealto Level11anyway. Hisfailureto do so isundisputed. Therefore, allofhisclaims,includinghisretaliationclaim,aretmexhausted,asthemagistratejudgefound. V. Accordingly,IwilloverrulePlaintiff'sobjectionsandadopttheR&R initsentirety.1will grantDefendants'MotionsforSummaryJudgmentEECFNos.48,512,andIwilldenyPlaintiffs M otionforSpoliation (ECF No.55qasmoot. TheClerkisdirectedtosendacopy ofthismem orandllm opinionandaccompanying Order to theparties. ENTERED thisY #edayofMarch,2019. Nk - OR UNITED STATES DISTM CT JUDGE 9
]]>
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.
