Muhammad v. Fleming et al, No. 7:2017cv00481 - Document 30 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 9/25/2018. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cteRlt' s OFFICE U.s,Dlsr.IOURT ' AT DANVILLE,VA . FILED sEP 25 2218 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT FO R THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA R O AN O K E DIV ISIO N MALCOLM M VHAM M iD, Plaintiff, V. L.J.FLEM ING,etal., D efendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JULW C.D DLc C RK EPUW CLE C ivilA ction N o.7:17-cv-00481 M EM OR AND U M O PIN IO N By: H on.Jacltson L .K iser Senior U nited States D istrictJudge M alcolm M uhamm ad,aVirginiaprisone' rand frequentfilerin thiscourt,com menced this actionproîqpursuantto42U.S.C.j1983and 2000cc-1,etseq.,abouthisexperiencesat W allensR idge State Prison. 1previously ordered Plaintiffto file a second nm ended com plaint thatdoesnotincludeamisjoinedclaim ordefendant.Seese.2.,Fed.R.Civ.P.20(a)(2),21. , Hinsonv.NorwestFin.S.C..lnc.,239F.3d611,618(4thCir.2001).Plaintifffiledthenew pleading,andDefendantsfiledamotiontodismissortostrikemisjoinedclaimsanddefendants. Defendantsargue in theirm otion thatPlaintifffailed to comply with thepriorOrderand the FederalRules,and they ask m e to dism iss al1butone claim aboutPlaintiff sreligious dietin O ctober2015. Plaintiffargues in response thata11claim s and defendantsin the new pleading concern thesame seriesofallegedly retaliatorytransactionsandhavecom m on questionsoflaw and factsresulting from Plaintiff s exercise ofa FirstA m endm entright. Defendants'm otion to dism issorto strikemustbedenied. Bookerv.South Carolina DepartmentofCorrections,855F.3d 533,545(4th Cir.2017),heldin2017that,since2010, Muhammad v. Fleming et al prisoners in this circuithave had a clearly-established FirstAm endm entrightto file a written Doc. 30 prisop grievance w ithoutsuffering retaliation. A tleastone tmpublished circuitcourtopirlion has rem anded acaseunderBooker,finding afederalcasebecause aprisonerm adea û&verbal Dockets.Justia.com complaint''to staffandthen som ethingadversetotheprisonerhappened later. Seese.g.,Patton v.Kimble,717F.App'x 271,272(4th Cir.2018). Alm ostfif' ty yearsearlier,the Suprem eCourtrecognized thatlicourtsareil1equipped to dealw ith the increasingly urgentproblem s ofprison adm inistration and reform .'' Proctm ierv. M artinez,416U.S.396,405(1974).TheCourtexplained: (Federalcourtsjaze ...i11suited to actas the front-line agencies for the consideration and resolution of the infinite variety of prisoner com plaints. M oreover,thecapacityofotlrcriminaljusticesystem to dealfairly and fully with legitim ate claim swillbeim paired by a burgeoning increase offrivolous prisonercomplaints. As onem eans ofalleviating thisproblem ,THE CHIEF JUSTICE has suggested that federal and state 'authorities explore the possibility ofinstituting internaladm inistrativeproceduresfordisposition of inm ate grievances. Id.at405 n.9. M ore than twenty years later,Gtcongressenacted the Prison Litigation Reform Actof 1995(PLRA)...inthewakeofasharpriseinprisonerlitigationinthefederalcourts,.... designedtobringthislitigationundercontrol.''W oodfordv.Nco,548U.S.81,84(2006).A Ctcenterpiece''ofthis attem ptw asto require prisoners to exhaustavailable adm inistrative remedies.42U.S.C.j 1997e(a).Notably,courtshaveheldthatprisonersdonothavealegal entitlementtotileadpinistrativeremedies.See.e.g.,Adnmsv.Rice,40F.3d72,74 (4thCir. 1994). To hold otherw ise w ould be to bring virtually every tm popular decision by state actorswithin the scope ofa cause ofaction for'retaliation. Thiswould poseparticularproblem sin thecontextofprison administration.Everyactof discipline by prison ofticials is by definition (Gretaliatorv''in the sense that it responds directly to prisoner m isconduct. The prospect of endless claim s of retaliation on the part of inm ates would disnzpt prison officials in the discharge oftheirm ostbasic duties. 1d.(emphasisadded). 2 Even ifprisonersdo nothave afederalrighttothem ,apracticalresultofBookeristhat adm inistrative rem ediesarem oreaspringboardthan ahlzrdleforfederallitigation.A single written orverbalcom plaintensuresatleastoneactionableclaim forwhateverperceived Stretaliatory''events occurin the routine day to day adm inistration inside a pdson. To state a claim,aplaintiffneed only(Cdemonstratemorethanasheerjossibilitythatadefendanthasacted unlawfully.''' Ashcroftv.Inbal,556 U S.662,678(2009).Whetherthealleged (tretaliatory''act . oromission occurredisnotusuallydisputedast'geqveryactofdisciplineby prisonofficialsisby definition çretaliatory'in thesensethatitrespondsdirectlyto prisonerm isconduct'' Adnm s, supura. W hatisoften tm resolved isthe intentbehind the actor om ission,and a plaintiff(Gneed onlypresentevidencefrom whichajlzrymightreturnaverdictinllisfavor.''Andersonv. Liberty Lobby.Inc.,477U.S.242,257(1986).From there,Gtcredibilitydeterminations,thq weighingoftheevidence,andthedrawingoflegitimateinferencesfrom thefactsarejlzry f'unctions,notthoseofajudge.''1d.at255. Evenif,arcuendo,every otherclaim ismisjoinedandfrivolous,Plaintiffhaspleaded ' , ; ( retaliationwithatsrighttorelief...assertedagainsttheg)gdefendantsqjointly,severally,orinthe1 E alternativewith respectto orarisingouiofthesametransaction,occurrence,orseriesof i ; transactionsoroccurrences''andwithtçquestionoflaw orfactcommontoal1defendantsg.j''Fed.6 R.Civ.P.20(a)(2).Theadvicefrom Adnms-totreatsuch claimswith Esskepticism,lestfederal courtsem broilthem selvesin every disciplinary actthatoccllrsin statepenalinstitutions''- isof ' 1And>ofcourse, courtsarerequired toliberallyq construeaprisoner'sproéqcom plaint,stopping shortonly . ofidentifyingclaimsneverftfairly''presented.Beaudettv.Cit' vofHampton,775F.2d1274,1278(4thCir.1985). Itisamorem anageableexercisew hen aprisoner'spleadingdoesnotlistevery ttretaliatory''com m ent,act,and om ission in am inuteby m inutelog from each dayforseveralyearsand involving every correctionalstafferata Prison. ' littleimportbecausecotlrtsmaynotiatethatadverseperspeçtiveunderFederalRuleofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6)or56(a).SeeUnitedStatesv.Diebold.lnc.,j69U.S.654,655(1962)(:&On summaryjudgmenttheinferencestobedrawn from thetmderlyingfactscontainedinsuch materialsmustbeviewedinthelightmostfavorabletothepartyopposingthemotion.'); Hanisonv.United StatesPostalSe1'v.,840F.2d 1149,1152(4thCir.1988)(ç(Inevaluatinga civilrightscomplaintforfailureto stateaclaim tmderFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6),wemustbe especially solicitousofthe wrongsalleged. W em ustnotdism issthe com plaintunless itappears to a certainty thattheplaintiffwouldnotbeentitled torelieftmderany legaltheory which m ight plausiblybesuggestedbythefactsalleged.''(internalquotationmarksomittedl).Accordingly,I do notfind Defendants'm otion to dism issorto strikepersuasive,and itmustbedenied. Ex TsR : This . 9 54% dayofseptember2018. , e N $ en' rU nited StatesD istrictJudge 4
]]>
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.
