Desper v. Clarke et al, No. 7:2017cv00549 - Document 46 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 9/11/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
eLERKS OFFICE U.s.DISQ COURC ATROANOKE,VA FILED IN TH E UN ITE D STA TES DISTR ICT CO UR T FO R TH E W E STER N D ISTR ICT O F V IR G IN IA R O A N O K E D IV ISION sEF 11 2218 JUL C. BK >. DUDL , RK P W cL K JA M ES PAU L D ESPER , CA SE N O .7:17CV 00549 Plaintiff, V. M EM ORANDUM OPINION HAROLD CLARKE,ZI AL , By: Glen E.Conrad Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge D efendants. Jnm es Paul D esper, a V irginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,fled this civilrights action . pursuantto42U.S.C.j1983.Hecontendsthatbydenyinghim visitationwithhisminordaughter since2015,thedefendantshaveviolated hisconstitutionalrightstmdertheAssociation Clauseof the First Am endment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Am endment. By opinion and orderentered January 29,2019,the courtgranted the defendants' motion to dismissand denied Desper'smotion forsumma ryjudgment. Desperhasmoved for 1 reconsideration ofthatnlling. Afterreview ofthem otion and therecord,the courtwilldeny the m otion. Desper has been in prison since Septem ber 2009,serving sentences im posed forthree convictionsofforciblerapethrough thementalincapacityorhelplessnessofthevictim ,involving an l8-year-old wom an,who wasdeterm ined to havethe overallmentalcapacity ofan eight-year- o1d child. SeeDesperv.Commonwealth,No.2116-10-3,2011W L 5346030 (Ct.App.Nov.8, 2011).Desper'smother,GlendaDesper(ttGlenda''),haslegalandphysicalcustodyofhisminor Desper v. Clarke et al Doc. 46 daughter,K.D .,who wasnotthe victim ofDesper's sexualoffenses. Between September2009 and December2015,Desperwasallowedprison visitation with K.D . On M arch 1, 2014, the V irginia D epartm ent of Corrections visitation regulations in Operating Procedtlre ('GOP'') 851.1 changed. Section 1V(C)(12) of OP 851.1 provided that Dockets.Justia.com GtEoqffenderswith any conviction requiring registration in theSex Offenderand Crimesaaainst M inorsRegistrv willnotbeallowed tovisitwith any minortmtilgranted a sex offendervisitation exem ption.'' Compl.Ex.2,ECF No.1-2. The procedure allowsexemptiofs for a sex offender inm ate to visitwith hisbiologicalchild only ifthatchild wasnotavictim ofhis crim esand the offender applies for and is g' ranted an exemption. The exemption process involves a lengthy questionnaireforthechild'scustodian and an assessm entoftheinm ate,includingaM entalStatus Evaluation (çGM SE'')5review oftheinmate'spersonal,social,andsexualhistory,andanûGactuarial assessment.''J-êsTheevaluatorreviewsa1lthesematerialsandforwardsthem totheSexOffender Visitation Comm ittee,whosem embersrecomm end approvalordisapprovalofthe exem ption. A designated prison administratorm akesthe finaldecision,which cnnnotbe appealed. Afterone year,theinmatem ay reapply forasex offendervisitation exemption. Desper first lenrned in Febnzat'y 2016 thatofficials had removed K .D.from his list of approved visitors. In M arch 2016,and again in 2017,Desperand Glendaapplied unsuccessfully foran exemption. They weredissatisfied with thenoticethey received afterdisapprovaloftheir applications.Desperhasalso complained thatexemptionsforvisitationwith minorchildren have been approved forothersex offenders,who are confined forsim ilarormore seriouscrim es. BecauseDespersigned and datedhism otionforreconsideration within 28daysf' rom entry ofthejudgment,thecourtconstnlesitasarising tmderRule59(e)oftheFederalRtllesofCivil Procedure. It is wellestablished that Gûreconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary rem edy w hich should be used sparingly.'' Pac.Ins.Co.v.A m .N at'lFire Ins.Co., 148 F.3d 396,403 (4th Cir.1998)(internalcitationsandquotation marksomitted). A judgment may be amended under Rule 59(e) in only three circumstances:1:41) to accommodate an intelweningchangeincontrollinglaw;(2)toaccountfornew evidencenotavailableattrial, '.or(3) tocorrectaclearen' orof1aw orpreventmarlifestinjustice.''PacificIns.Co.v.Am.Nat'lFirelns. Co.,148F.3d 396,403 (4th Cir.1998). The courthascarefully reviewed Desper'smotion and concludesthatitdoesnotpresentany circum stancewarrantingtherequested relief. Desper's m otion doesnotpointto any intervening change in the 1aw oroffer facts not availableto him dtlring thependency ofthe motion to dism iss. He com plainsthatthecourtdid notpermithim to engage in discovery.l Becausea m otion to dismissteststhe sufficiency ofthe pleadings,Desperw asnotentitled to discovery beforethe courtdecided the defendant'sm otion. M oreover,hefailsto identifyanyinform ationthatlack ofdiscoverypreventedhim from obtairling with which hecould havepersuaded thecourtto reach adifferentoutcome in thecase. Thus,the courtfndsnobasisforgrantingRule59(e)reliefunderthefirsttwofactorsinPacificIns. Desperalso contendsthatthe courterred in failing to appointcotmselto representllim in thiscase. ûiunderSection 1915(d)aplaintiffdoesnothave an absoluterightto appointmentof counsel. M illerv.Simmons,814 F2d 962,966 (4th Cir.1987). W hilethe districtcourtmay requestthatcounselundertakerepresentation ofalitigant,itisnotan abuse ofdiscretionnotto do so lm lesstheplaintiffdemonstratesEithathiscase isonewith exceptionalcirctlm stances.'' 1d. In denying Desper'stwom otionsseeking appointm entofcounsel,the courtdidnot5ndthatlliscase fellinto thiscategory.Thecourtcontinuestobelievethatthesem otionswereappropriately denied. Therefore,the courtcnnnot5nd thatthe failure to appointcounselwas a clear error of1aw or rendered anymnnifestinjusticesuchthatrelieftmderRule59(e)iswarranted. The next argum ent D esper m akes is that the court im properly denied his m otion for sllmmaryjudgmentwithoutpermittingthediscoverythathesought.Thecourtdeterminedfrom 1 Thedefendants'responsesinoppositiontoDesper'smotion forsummaryjudgmentandhismotion for interlocutory injunctivereliefincluded sworn affdavitsand otherdocumentation. In considering thedefendants' motion to dismiss,however,thecourtdid notconsiderany ofthesemattersoutsidethepleadings. Onthatbasis,the courthasalso denied Desper'smotionto compeldiscovery. 3 the pleadings,however,thatDesper'scomplaintdid notstate any plausible constitutionalclaim . Assuch,he could notbeentitled to reliefunder j1983 Gçasa matteroflaw''so asto wnrrant sllmmmyjudgmentinllisfavor.Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a). Finally,Desperreargues each ofltisconstitutionalclaim s,aslcing the courtto reopen the caseand decideitinhisfavor.Afterreview ofhiscontentions,thecourtissatisfiedthatthemotion to dismisswasproperly granted. Accordingly,thecourtwilldeny Desper'sRule59(e)motion. An appropriateorderwillissueherewith. TheClerk isdirected tosend copiesofthismem orandum opizlion and accom panying order to the parties. ENTER # :This l1 dayofSeptember,2019. . SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 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.
