Reynolds v. State of Virginia et al, No. 7:2017cv00517 - Document 47 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 2/19/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
#A# c&eR&% oFFlce u,B.DI:T.COURT AT DANVILLE,VA FILFD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W E STER N D ISTR ICT O F W R G IN IA R O AN OK E DIW SIO N CL AR EN CE DU K E REY N O LD S, Plaintiff, FEB 1! 2219 JU I A C.DUDLW ,CLEBK BY: DEPUW CLERK CivilA ction N o.7:17-cv-00517 . M EM OR ANDUM OPINION V. STATE OF VIRGINIA,etal., D efendants. By:H on.Jacltson L.K iser Senior United StatesDistrictJudge Clarence Duke Reynolds,a Virginia inmate proceeding pro K ,filed a civilrightsaction ptlrsuantto42U.S.C.j1983againstthefollow Defendants:theStateofVirginia;VirgilliaParole Board Chairwom an Adrinnne Bennetq Virginia Parole Board M em ber Rev.A .Lincoln James; Virgirlia Parole Board M em ber Sherm an Lea; Virginia Parole Board Co-chair Jean W . Cllnningham;Virginia Parole Board M em ber Jorli L.Ivey;Form er Virginia Governor Terry M cAuliffe;and theSenateand HouseofRepresentativesofVirginiml 1. C laim s Plaintiffraiseseightclaim s' . 1. çll-heParoleBoard isin violation ofmy6th AmendmentErightsqwhenthey did nottreat parole and mirlimum sentence ashaving the sam e protection asthe maximllm sentence underthe6thAmendment.''(Compl.8 EECFNo.11.)2 2. Tff' he Parole Board isin violation ofmy 6th Amendmentgrightsqby having abiasgedj ParoleBoard.By having arepresentativeofacrim evictim arld aperson in thefeldof1aw Reynolds v. State of Virginia et al Doc. 47 enforcem entserving on theParoleBoardisa constitutionalviolation.''Id. 1Iom itinternalcitations,alterations,and quotation m arksthroughoutthis opinion,unless otherwise noted.SeeUnitedStatesv.M arshall,872F.3d213,217n.6(4thCir.2017). 2w hen referringto thecom plaint,1usethepage numberofthedocumentaslisted on ECF. Dockets.Justia.com Cç-f'heParoleBoardM anulallisinviolationofmy5th,6th,and14th Amendmentg)Erights) when itgives(elem entofcrime'aspartoftheguidelinesfortheParoleBoard decisionsto grantOrnOttogratltparole.''J. /..S 4. dd-l-he StateofVirginiacreated law sthatgovern theparole system arein violation my 5th, 6th,and 14th Amendmentg)grightslby having lelementofcrime'in the Parole Boad M atmlallandbyhavingabiasledqpanelofParoleBoardmembersthatarerepresenvtive ofcrimevictimEsq.''ld. 5. tdf' heParoleBoardisinviolationofmy 6thAmendment(rights)whentheyused çelement ofcrim e'fortheirreasoning and determination nottograntparole.''Id. 6. Gçl-he Parole Board is in violation of my 6th Amendment grightsl when they used unsubstantialortmtruthflllreasoning totllrn tllisPlaintiffdown forparole.'' Id. 7. iGlnstead ofusing factstheVirginiaParole Board isin violation ofthisPlainitftl's)6th Amendmentrightsby using theiropinion in making Ethe)decision notto grantparole.'' M ot.to A m end 1,ECF N o.12. 8. St-l' heParoleBoardhasviolatedthisPlaintiffl'sq6th and 14th AmendmentErightsjofthe United StatesConstitution whentheym etin secretorbehind closed doorstodeterminenot gtolgrantparoletothisPlaintifll''Id. ForrelieflPlaintiffrequests:(1)atlinvestigationofthelawsthatgovez' ntheVirgirziaparolesystem; (2)acourtorderdirectingtheStateofVirginiatorewritethelawsthatgovernparoleinVirginia; (3)afederaltake-overoftheVirginiaparolesystem untilitfollowsthenzleinAlleyney.United States,570U.S.99 (2013);(4)thereleasea1linmateswhoserightswereviolatedbytheVirginia parolesystem;(5)restitutionforal1inmatesdeniedparoleforthereason ofçtcurrentoffense'';(6) costsforthislawsuit;(7)acotlrtorderdirectingtheGovernorofVirginiatoappointParoleBoard ';i> M embersthatare in compliancewith the Sixth Amendment;and (8)immediate release ofthe Plaintiffwithrestimtion.(Compl.l9;M ot.toAmend2EECFNo.12).) Defendantsfleda12(b)(6)motiontodismissandPlaintiffresponded,makingthismatter ripefordisposition.Afterreviewingtherecord,lwillgrantD efendants'm otion to dismiss. II. StandardsofR eview A. 12(b)(6)M otiontoDismiss Defendantsarguethatthecomplaintfailsto stateaclaim upon which reliefmay begranted ptzrsuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedme12(b)(6). A complaintneed only contain ç;a short,plain statem ent ofthe claim showing thatthe pleaderisentitledtorelief.''Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2).W henevaluatingaRule 12(b)(6)motionto dism issforfailureto state a claim ,a courtmustacceptastrue allwell-pleaded allegations. See Vitol S.A.v.Primerose Shippinc Co.,708F.3d 527,539 (4th Cir.2013);see also Erickson v. Pardus,551U.S.89,94(2007).(GW hileacomplaintattackedbyaRule12(b)(6)motiontodismiss does notneed detailed factualallegations,a plaintiffs obligation to provide the groundsofllis entitlem entto reliefrequiresm orethan labelsand conclusions,and a formulaicrecitation ofthe elementsofacauseofactionwillnotdo.''BellAtl.Cop .v.Twombly,550U.S.544,555(2007). Stated differently,to stlrvive a motion to dismiss,&&a com plaintm ustcontain sufticientfacm al m atter,accepted astrue,to statea claim to reliefthatisplausibleon itsface.'' Ashcroftv.Icbal, 556U.S.662,678(2009). A courtneed not Staccept the legalconclusions draw n from the facts''or çGaccept as tz' ue tmw arranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions,or argttm ents.''E. Shore M kts..Inc.v.J.D . Assocs.Ltd.P'ship,213F.3d 175,180(4th Cir.2000).CTactualallegationsmustbeenough to raisea rightto reliefabovethespeculative level,''Twom bly,550 U.S.at555,with al1allegations + in thecomplainttaken astrueand al1reasonable inferencesdrawn in theplaintiff'sfavor, Chao v. RivendellW oods.lnc.,415 F.3d 342,346 (4th Cir.2005). Rule 12(b)(6) does Ginotrequire heightenedfactpleading ofspecifics,butonlyenough factstostateaclaim toreliefthatisplausible on itsface.'' Twom bly,550 U.S.at 570. M aldng the plausibility determ ination is:da context- spedtk task thatrequiresthe reviewing courtto draw on itsjudicialexperience and common sense.'' Iqbal,556 U .S.at679. B.ProS Pleadings Theplaintiffisproceedingpro#qand,thus,entitledtoaliberalconstnlction ofthepleading. .. Seese.g.,Erickson,551U .S.at90-95.However,tdprinciplesrequiring generousconstnzction of pro >.. qcom plaintsarenot...withoutlimits.''Beaudettv.Citv ofHnm pton,775 F.2d 1274,1278 (4th Cir.1985).TheFourthCircuithasexplainedthatGGthoughpro#.qlitigantscnnnot,ofcotlrse, beexpectedtofram elegalissueswith theclarityandprecision ideallyevidentinthework ofthose trainedin law,neithercan districtcourtsberequiredtoconjureup anddecideissuesneverfairly presented to them .''Id.at1276;see K alderon v.Finkelstein,N o.08 Civ 9440,2010 W L 3359473, at*1n.1 (S.D.N.Y.Aug.24,2010)(çlplaintiffscomplaintbelongsto the everything-but-theldtchen sink schoolofthought'' Gs-l-he complaintisextrem ely difficultto follow because ofits extrem e length and purported factual detail. The factual allegations are often repetitive, inconsistent,andcohtradictedbydocllmentsreferencedinthecomplaint.'). C.42U.S.C.j1983 GCTO stateaclaim underj1983,aplaintiffmustallegetheviolation ofarightsecuredby the Constitution and law s of the U nited States,and m ust show that the alleged deprivation w as committedbyaperson actingtmdercolorofstatelaw.''W estv.Atkins,487U.S.42,48(1988). Notably,a plaintiffm ustsufticiently allege a defendant'spersonalactor om ission leading to a 4 depdvation ofafederalright. See Fisherv.W ash.M etro.Area TransitAuthor.,690 F.2d 1133, 1142-43(4thCir.1982),abrozatedonotherRroundsbyCty.ofRiversidev.M cLaughlin,500U.S. 44(1991).Negligentdeprivationsarenotactionableunderj1983.Seepe.g.,Danielsv.W illinms, 474U.S.327,330(1986);Pinkv.Lester,52F.3d73,77(4th Cir.1995). D.Qualified Immunity ççf' hedoctrine ofqualised immunity protectsgovernm entofficials(from liability forcivil dnm ages insofar astheir conductdoes notviolate cleazly established statutory orconstimtional rightsofwhich areasonablepersonwouldhave11110m 1.''7Pearsonv.Callahan,555 U.S.223,231 (2009)(quoting Harlow v.Fitm erald,457U.S.800,818 (1982)).W hen adefendantassertsthe affirmative defense of qualified im munity,the courtmustdetermine Eswhether the factsthata plaintiffhasalleged ...makeoutaviolation ofaconstitutionalrightg,l''and(Gwhethertherightat issuewasçclearly established'atthetimeofdefendant'sallegedmisconduct.''1d.at232 (citing Saucier v.Katz,533 U.S.194,201 (2001)). ln determining whetherthe law was clearly established,thecourtGsordinarily neednotlookbeyondthedecisionsoftheSupremeCourt,Ethe Fourth CircuitCourtofAppealsj,arld thellighestcourtofthe state in which thecase arose.'' Lefeminev.W ideman,672 F.3d292,298(4th Cir.2012),vacatedonothergrotmds,568U.S.1 (2012).Theonusisonadefendantasserting qualifedimmtmitytoactuallyputforth authorities andargumentshowingthatheisentitledtoit.M eversv.Balt.Ctv.sM d.,713F.3d723,731(4th Cir.2013). 111. Parole in V irginia Va.Codej53.1-136obligatestheVirgirliaParoleBoardCûtheBoard''ltoCçlaldopt,subject to approval by the Governor, general rules govenzing the granting of parole and eligibility requirements,wllich shallbe published and posted forpublic review .'' Section 53.1-136 also 5 rtquirestheBoardtoreleaseeligiblepersonswhoççarefoundsuitableforparole,accordingtothke) rules''adoptedbytheBoard. JIJ.STheBoardmustgenerally considerparole-eligibleinmateson - an nnnualbasis.Va.Code j53.1-154. TheBoard mustGsgelnstlrethateach person eligiblefor parole receivesatim ely and thorough review ofhissuitability forrelease on pazole,including a review ofanyrelevantpost-sentendnginformation.''Va.Codej53.1-136(2).Stlfparoleisdenied, thebasisforthedenialshallbeinwriting andshallgivespecitk reasonsfordenialto suchinm ate.'' Va.Codej53.1-13647).Gi-fheVirginiaCodeentruststheadministrationofthediscretionaryparole system to the Bord, and it vests the Board with broad discretion in canying out its responsibilities.''Burnettev.Fahef,687F.3d 171,175(4thCir.2012). IV. Sixth A m endm entand Parole Plaintiffarguesin severalclaim sthatthe defendantsviolated hisSixth Amendm entrights regarding hisparole proceedings. Plaintiffbasesthe claims upon the new rule ofconstimtional law nnnotmcedin Alleynev.United States,570U.S.99(2013). HeassertsthatAlleyneapplied the Sixth Am endmentto paroleproceedingsby requiring Cçanything thatincreasesthem inim llm sentence(tobe)presentedinf' rontofthejury.'' (Compl.10.) Hefurthercontendsthatçtg -pqarole isaffixedtothecrimealzdsentencing,''and,Gtlwqhen theParoleBoardrefersback toaperson's crim e they are in violation ofthe 6th Am endm entasto the ruling in Allevne.'' Id.at 10-11. His arguments are unavailing. The Sixth Amendm entto the United States Constimtion states: In a11criminalprosecutions,the accused shallenjoy therightto a speedy andpublictrial,byan impartialjury ...to beinformed of the nattlre and cause ofthe accusation;to be confronted with the witnesses againsthim ;to have compulsory process for obtaining witnessesin hisfavor,arld to have the Assistance ofCounselforhis defence. 6 U .S.Const.Am end.Vl. The (sexplicit guarantees ofthe Sixth Am endment''specifically and exclusively apply in Gtcrim inal prosecutions.'' Kirby v.Illinois,406 U. S.682,690 (1972). Commencement of a criminalprosecution occurs upon ttthe initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings- whether by way of form al charge, prelim inary heming, indictm ent, infonnation,orarraignm ent.''United Statesv.Gouevia,467U .S.180, 188(1984)(discussingthe Sixth Amendment right to cotmsel). In Alleyne,the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment,dsinconjunctionwiththeDueProcessClause,requiresthateach elementofacrime beprovedtothejtlrybeyondareasonabledoubt.''570U.S.at104. Contrary to Plaintiffs contentions,neitherthe Sixth Amendm entnorAlleyne applies to parolebecauseSsparole isnotpartofa crim inalprosecution.''M onissev v.Brewer,408U.S.471, 480 (1972) (noting that parole tirises after the end of the criminalproseçution,including impositionofsentence').Drawinga1lreasonablefactsandinferencesinfavorofthenon-moving party,Plaintifffailsto statea elaim becausethe SixthAm endmentdoesnotapplyto discretionary parolereview. Therefore,Defendantsare entitled to qualified immllnity fordnm ages,and 1will grantthem otion to dism issasto the Sixth Am endmentclaim s. Fourteenth A m endm entand V irginia Parole ReynoldsassertsFourteenthAm endmentdueprocessclaim sbasedontheallegedviolation ofhisliberty interestin pazole. The DueProcessClauserequiresthe governmentto providedue processofthe 1aw before depriving any person oflife,liberty,orproperty. U.S.Const.Amend. XIV;Bd.ofRegentsofStateCollezesv.Roth,408U.S.564,570-72(1972).Forstategovernment action,Ctthe Supreme Courthas held thatif state 1aw creates a rightthat implicates a person's liberty,the individualpossessing thisrightisentitled to thosem inimum procedm es appropriate tmderthe circum stancesand required by the Due ProcessClause to insuzethatthe state-created r' S rightisnot arbitrarily abrogated.'' Hillv.Jackson,64 F.3d 163,170 (4th Ch' ,1995). Atthe threshold,Virginiainm atesdonothaveaconstimtionalrightto earlyreleasepriortotheexpiration ofalawfulsentencebecauseparole isdiscretionary. SeeGreenholtzv. Inm atesoftheN eb.Penal & Corr.Complex,442U.S.1,7(1979);Gastonv.Taylor,946F.2d340,344 (4thCir.1991)(en banc)(findingtheççfearorhopeaboutaf' uttu'ediscretionarydedsion g)too speculativeto give (1 alibertyinteresf).However,Virginiainmatesdohavealimitedlibertyinterestin consideration forparole eligibility. Hill,64 F.3dat170. Plaintiffisentitied(Ktothoseminimmn Edueprocess)proceduresappropriate.'' Id.;Vann v.Angelone,73F.3d519,522(4thCir.1996)(ttEvenwherethiscourthasfotmdthatparolestatm e establishes a liberty interest,we have held thatinm ates aze entitled to no m ore than m inim al procedtlre.').ç(Atmost,(theFourth Circuitjhagsjheldthatparoleauthoritiesmustfurnishtothe prisonera statem entofitsreasonsfordezlialofparole.'' Vnnn,73 F.3d at522. 'GSO long asthe statem entprovidesavalidground fordenyingparole,thefederalcourtscannot,undertheguiseof due process,dem and m ore from the state.'' Bum ette v.Fahey,No.3:10CV 00070,2010 W L 4279403,at*8(E.D.Va.Oct.25,2010);seealsoBloodcoodv.Ganughty,783F.2d470,473(4th Cir.1986)(tçW herethedenialofparole...restsononeconstitutionallyvalidgrotmd,theEvirginia ParolejBoard'sconsideration ofan allegedly invalid grotmd would notviolate aconstitutional right'').InBloodgood,theFourth Circuitspecifically determinedthattheBoarddenyingparole releasebecauseofûdtheseriousnessof(thejcrime''andtheGtpattel' n ofcriminalconduct''satisfied the constitutionalstandard.783 F.2d at472,474. Here,the Board satisfied the m inimllm due process requirem ents when they denied Plaintiffpazolebecauseoftheseriousnessofhiscrimeandhispatternofcriminalconduct.(Exh. D,ECF No.1-1.) SeeBloodcood,783F.2dat472,474.Furthermore,Plaintiffhasnotothem ise i alleged any fads dem onstrating thatthe Virginia Parole Board failed to m eetthe minimllm due processrequirem ents.3 Therefore, Defendantsareentitledto qualifed imm llnity fordam ages,and Iwillgrantthem otion to dismisstheFourteenth Amendm entclaim s.4 V I. Fortheforegoing reasons,IwillgrantDefendants'm otion to dism iss.s TheClerk isdirectedto sendacopy ofthism emorandum opinion andaccompanying order to the parties. -ttd -qayofFebruary, 2019. Ex l-ym 'lqo this lol e e $ R - . ITED STATES D ISTR ICT JU D GE 3ThevastmajorityofPlaintiff'sfilingschallengetheconstimtionalityofVirginia'sparolelawsand rules. He also generally assertsthatthe Board'suse of Cdseriousness and circum stance ofthe crim e''and (spresentoffense''violated hisrights.He doesnotspecifically allege any action by theBoard thatm adethe denialofhisparoleunconstitutionalorinvalid. 4 I also note that the Com monwealth of V irginia, the Governor, and the Senate and House of RegresentativesofVirginiaarenotcognizablej1983defendants. SeeW illv.MichiRanDep'tofState Pollce,491U.S.58,64 (1989)(;ç(AjStateisnotapersonwithinthemeaningofj 19833;Boganv.ScottHarris,523 U.S.44,49 (1998)Cçlsqtate and regionallegislatorsareentitled to absolute immunity from liabilityunderj 1983fortheirlegislativeactivities''). 5To theextentthatPlaintiffattemptedto raisenew claim sin hisresponse,such ashisdiscussion ofthe Constim tion'sprohibition on billsofattainder,theclaim sarenotreviewableand,regardless,withoutm erit. Seee.g.,Cutrerav.Bd.ofSupervisorsofLa.StateUniv..429 F.3d 108,113-114(5th Cir.2005)(holding thata claim raised notin the com plaintbutin response to a dispositive m otion isnotproperly before the court);BarclavWhiteSkanska,lnc.v.BattelleMemorialInstitute,262F.App'x556,563(4thCir.2008).
]]>
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.
