Haendel v. Clark et al, No. 7:2017cv00135 - Document 80 (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.S.DIS1lCOURT ArDANVILLE,VA FILED IN TIIE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT MAq 2C 2218 FORTHEWE ROA STENOKE RNDIS DT IWS RICIT ON OFWRGINIA BY J: u( u1 wW.DDLEMcLE DEPUW CLER DA N H AEN D EL, Plaintiff, CivilA ction N o.7:17-cv-00135 V. M EM O R AN D UM O PIN IO N H AROLD W .CLARK ,etal., D efendants. By: H on.Jackson L.Kiser SeniorU nited StatesD istrictJudge Dan Haendel,aform erVirginiainm ateproceeding proK ,comm encedthisactionplzrsuant to42 U.S.C.j 1983andtheReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalizedPersonsAct(&<RI,UIPA''), 42 U.S.C.j 2000cc-1 et seg,againstdefendants associated with the Virginia Departmentof Corrections($çVDOC''),HaynesvilleCorrectionalCenter(ç$HCC''),andCoffeewoodCorrectional Center(çûCW CC'').1CurrentlypendingisaM otionforCivilContemptofCourtOrder(GçM otion'') filed byPlaintiffagainstDefendantGilmore. (ECFNo.45.) TheM otionhad been referredtoa United States M agistrate Judge for i report and recomm endation plzrsuant to 28 U.S.C. j636(b)(1)(B)(theççR&R'')EECFNo.78j,andPlaintifftimelyfiledMsobjections(ECFNo.794. Forthereasonsthatfollow,1willrejectPlaintiffsobjectionsandadopttheR&R initsentirety. 1Atthe tim ePlaintifffiled hiscomplaint,he wasan attorney ofthe DiskictofColumbiaBar. See In ReKatrinaCanalBreachesConsol.Litig.,533F.Supg.2d615,631-33& nn.14-15(E.D.La.2008) Haendel v. Clark et al (collectingcasesindicatingthatfederalcourtsmaytakejudlcialnoticeofgovernmentalwebsites);W illiams v.Long,585F.Supp.2d 679,686-88& n.4 (D.M d.2008)(collecthlg casesindicatingthatpostingson governmentwebsitesare inherently authenticorself-authenticating). Hehassincebeen disbarred. Illre Dan Haendel,No.18-86-522 (D.C.Ct.App.Jan.3,2019). However,Idecline to extend the liberal construction standardto adisbarredattorney.SeeHainesv.Kerner,404U.S.519,521(1972)(observing Doc. 80 that a courtshould hold pro K com plaintsto ('less stringentstandards than formalpleadings drafted by . lawyers'');M cNnmara v.Brauchler,5)0 F.App'x 741,743 n.2 (10th Cir.2014)(declining to liberally construe a pro K complaintbyadisbarredattorney);Rubin v.Jenkuskw.601F.App' x 606,610 n.4(10th Cir.2015)(same). . 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1. Background In 2017,Plaintiffw as aprisonerin the custody ofthe VD O C atCoffeew ood. Plaintiffw as transferred to Coffeewood in September 2015 so that Plaintiff could pM icipate in VDOC'S Common FareDiet(Gicommon Fare'').Common Fareisafood serviceprogrnm developed the VDOC to m eetthe dietary needs ofinm atesthathave food-related religiousrequirem entsthat cnnnotbeaccomm odatedby fopdson otherVDOC m enus.Plaintifffiledacom plaintin thiscourt alleging thatcertainprison officialsviolatedhisrightstmderj 1983 and RLUIPA by failingto provide him with akosherdietunderComm on Fare consistentwith hisreligiousbeliefs and by othem isediscriminating againsthim on thebasisofthosebeliefs. In February 2018,Plaintifffiled açlM otion forImmediateInjtmctiveRelief'seekingan orderrequiringtheVDOC and Coffeewoodtoprovide(1)çtcertified KosherforPassovermeals dudngPassover2018beginningM arch30,2018,''and(2)SicertifbeddailyKoshermealsl,)which CommonFarefailstodo....''(P1.'sM ot.forInj.Relief1EECFNo.34j.) Inanorderenteredon M arch29,2018(theGtlnjtmction Order''),1tookunderadvisementPlaintiffsrequestforcertified daily Kosher meals and granted, in part,Plaintiff's request for Kosher for Passover m eals, providing thefollowing directive: (TjheW arden ofCoffeewood shallallow Plaintiffto receivethedonatedKosher forPassoverm ealsalready obtained and delivered forPlaintiffbefore the startof the VDOC'S2018 Passoverprogrnm ;Plaintiffmuststillcomply with third party purchase requirem entand other aspectsofthe VD OC'S 2018 Passover program ; and any K osher for Passover m ealto be delivered to Plaintiff as a result of tlzis Orderisstillsubjectto Coffeewood'susualscreening orsecttrity proceduresto ensure and m aintain institutionalsecudty. (OrderonM ot.forInj.Relief5 (ECF No.42j.) On April12,2018,Plaintifffiled thepresentM otion requesting thatIEçcite W arden lvan Gilmore...forcivilcontemptforflagrantviolationsoftheElnjtmction Orderj.''(P1.'sM ot.for CivilContempt1 (ECF No.45j(IT1.'sM ot.'').) In hisM otion,Plaintiffalleged thatGilmore, along with other representatives ofthe VDOC,violated the Injtmction Order by,inter alia, arbitrarily denying Plaintiffcertain donated KosherforPassoveritem sshipped to Coffeewoodby athird party.OpposingtheM otion,DefendantsassertedthattheCoffeewood stafftook greatcare toensurecompliancewiththeInjtmctionOrderandthatGsplaintiffsallegationsareeitherfactually inaccurateorutterlyfabricated.''(Defs.'Opp'n Br.2(ECFNo.47j.) IntheR&R,themagistratejudgerecommendeddenyingPlaintiffsmotion. II. StandardsofR eview A.R&R ln a report ptlrsuant to 28 U.S.C. j 636(b), the magistrate judge makes only recomm endations to the cotu't. The recomm endations have no presllmptive weight, and responsibility formaldng a finaldetennination remainswith the cotlrt. M athewsv.W eber,423 U.S.261,270-71(1976).Thecourtischargedwithmaldngaéqnovoreview ofthoseportionsof thereporttowhich speciûcobjection ismade,andmay Cçaccept,reject,ormodify,in wholeorin part,thefindingsorrecommendations''ofthemagistratejudge. 28U.S.C.j636(b)(1). In the absenceofspecificobjectionstothereport,thecourtisnotrequiredto giveany explanation for adopting the recommendation. Cnmby v.Davis,718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). Objectionsthatonly repeatargumentsraised before a magistratejudge are considered general objectionstotheentiretyofthereportandrecommendation,wlzichhasthesnmeeffectasafailuze toobject.Venevv.Astrue,539F.Supp.2d 841,845(W .D.Va.2008). B. M otion for CivilC ontem pt GTherecanbeno questionthatcourtshaveinherentpowerto erlforcecom pliancewiththeir lawfulordersthrough civilcontempt.'' Shillitnniv.United States,384 U.S.364,370 (1966). Contem ptis a ççdrastic rem edy''forwhich the movantcarries the çtheavy burden''to establish. Morcan v.Ban' y,596 F.Supp.897,898 (D.D.C.1984). The Fourth Circuithasheld thatto establish civilcontempt,them ovantmustproveeach ofthefotlrelem entsby cleazand convincing evidence; (1)theexistenceofavalid decreeofwhich thealleged contemnorhasacttzalor constructive knowledge;(2)the decree was in the movant's favor;(3) the alleged contemnor by its conduct violated the tenns ofthe decree and had knowledge(atleastconstructive)ofsuchviolation;and(4)themovantsuffered harm asa result. Redner'sM kts..Inc.v.JoppatowneG.P.Ltd.P'ship,608F.App'x 130,131(4thCir.2015)(citing JTH Taxslnc.v.H & R BlockE.TaxServs.,lnc.,359F.3d699,705(4thCir.2005)).(çW illfulness isnotan elementofcivilcontempt.''Id.(citingUnitedStatesv.W estbrooks,780F.3d 593,59697n.3(4thCir.2015)).IntheR&R,themagistratejudgecorrectlyidentifiedthethirdelementof civil contem pt,that the contem nor violated the terms of the decree by its conduct and had knowledge,astheprim ary issue. 111. A nalysis Afterreview ofPlaintiffsobjections,lconcludethey eitherrepeatargumentspreviously raisedtothemagistratejudgeorareirrelevant.Nevertheless,1willdiscusseachobjectioninttu' n. Plaintiff'sfollowingobjectionsareirrelevanttohisV otion:requestsfortestimony from ChaplainBurkeandUnitM anagerHillian(P1.'sObjs.1-2);requestsforallreceiptlogsofdonated KosherforPassoverpackagesforPassover2018tjJ=.at2);JudgeElizabethDillon'sdetermination 4 inaseparatecasethattheCommonFareisnotkoshertLd. =.at! 1);themagistratejudgemislabeled thesenderofthe damaged food box (t(. k at!2);arequestforphone logsto detenninewhether Gilmorecalled M onisonM arch 30 orApril2,2018tj#=.at!!3,6);Gilmorespokederogatorily abouttheInjtmction OrdertLckat!4);andameandering,colorful,andirrelevantparagraph about thenatm eofjuiceinprisons(id.at!9). M eanwhile,Plaintiffpreviouslyraisedtherestofhisobjectionstothemagistratejudge.In Plaintiffs firstççclaim y''he reassertsboth a generaldisbelief in Defendants'credibility and the arplmentthatthemagistratejudge should nothaveaccepted Defendants'justificationsforthe tmusualnumberofofficialsinvolved in thesearch ofhisKosherforPassovershipments. tLd=.at 1,!! 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12.) The R&R directly addressed these issues. (See R&R at13 n.3 (Gilmore'sallegedderogatory statementsabouttheInjunction Orderwereççtroublingiftnze''but did Gdnotviolatethe Injunction Orderbecausenothing inthatOrdercontrollled)whatGilmore'' could orcould notsay);iy.. sat 15-18 (Themagistratejudge acknowledged çtthatthe screening processforatleastsom e ofPlaintiff'sshipm ents wasatypical,''butruled thatK'the factthatthe screerling processwasunusualdoesnotalso show thatitwas aim ed atharassing orretaliating againstPlaintiff,orthatitviolated any specific command in Judge Kiser'sInjunction Order. Instead,itappearsthatcorrectionalofficialsweresimplydoingtheirbestto complywiththeOrder underantmusualsetofcircllmstances.');j. t . kat13(holdingthatKçlelachofthecorrectionalofficers who testified atthe evidentiary hearing wasunequivocalin hisposition thatitem snotissued to Plaintiffwereconsideredcontrabandbecauseofhealth andsafetyconcerns'');L#..at14(GçGilmore and the otherVDOC officials who testified were llniform and clear''regarding fruitjuice as contraband);j. ;sat14n.4(Plaintiff'sassertionthatDefendantswereresponsiblefordnmaginghis 5 package,rather thatUSPS,was Glatbest speculative''and was çtnot suo cient to persuade the Court.'');iésat15 (Haehdel'sprofferedtestimonywasGçhardly thetypeofclearandconvincing evidencenecessary to establish thatVDOC offcialsintentionally failed to follow çcoffeewood's usualprocedtlres'in removing the fruitjuice from Haendel's personalpossession'') (citation removedl.) Second, Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge incorrectly determined that Coffeewood'spreviousallowanceofjuiceandotherfoodsthatwereconfiscatedinPassover2018 constituted Gtmistakes,''and thatthe VDOC'S Gélmwritten''policy of confiscating fruitjuice demonstratesthatthey violatedthelnjtmction Order. (P1.'sObjs.at1,!! 3,7,9,11,12.) The magistratejudgeruled on theseissues,aswell. (SeeR&R at15 (ççRatherthan showing anzle prohibiting prisoner's private possession of fruit juice did not exist, Plaintiff's witness's testimony)takenwiththeothercredibleevidencepresenteddemonstratesthatattimestherulewas mistakenly notenforced.');j. i at17 (GtButleracknowledged thathe had mistakenly given the containersofjuicetoPlaintiff...whenHaendelarguedthat...heshouldreceivethecontainers ofjuicefrom thesecond package.'l;id.at15n.5(itllEjven iftheprollibition onjuiceswgasjan informalortmwritten nlle,theInjtmction OrderdidnotlimittheW arden ofCoffeewoodtothe enforcementof(only)m ittenrules,butnotedthatanyitemsdeliveredtoHaendelwerestillsubject toa11tusualscreeningorsectuityprocedtlres.''')(citingOrderonM ot.forInj.Relief5,! 1), 'id.at 14 (lçllibbs,Gotlrdine,Butler,andGilmoreeachtestitiedthatCoffeewoodprohibitsinmatesfrom havingfruitjuiceintheirpersonalpossessions.Butlernotedthatthebasisfortllispolicy isthat fruitjuicecanbeusedtocreatealcohol.Plaintiffattemptedtounderminethistestimonybyarguing thatthere isno m itten ruleproilibiting possession ofjuice....Gilmore and the otherVDOC 6 ofticialswhotestifiedweretmiform andclearintheirtmderstandingthatfruitjuiceisconsidered contraband onceitleavesthe dininghal1.'');see alsoPl.'sObjs.at! 9 (Plaintiffacknowledging juiceoutsidethedininghallascontraband:CCVDOC knowsonlytoowellthatthisjuiceissmuggled outofthe dirlingroom to be made into wine. Thekitchen and the dining hallaregreatpractice areasforinmateswhowanttohonetheirstealingski11s.'').) Plaintiffsobjectionsmerely repeatmplmentsraised beforethemagistratejudgeand are thusconsideredgeneralobjectionstotheentiretyofthereportandrecommendation,which'hasthe snmeeffectasafailtlretoobject.Veney,539F.Supp.2dat845.Therefore,Iconcludethatneither PlaintiffnorDefendantsobjecttothecorrespondingportionsoftheR&R. Having reviewedthe relevantportionsofthe R& R,Ifind thatthey are thorough,well-reasoned,and contain no clear error. IV . Accordingly,IwilloverrulePlaintiff'sobjectionsandadopttheR&R initsentirety.Iwill denyinPlaintifrsM otionforCivilContemptofCourtOrder.(ECFNo.45.) TheClerk isdirectedtosendacopy ofthism emorandllm opinion andaccompanying order totheparties. EN TERED tllis day ofM arch,2019. N '' . EN R ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU D GE
]]>
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.
