Hailey v. Red Onion Prison et al, No. 7:2018cv00020 - Document 28 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 3/1/2019. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
yL ERK'SoFFlcsus olsmcouv ' . ATR> Ncki,vA . i I zluEo MA2 2 12218 IN TIIE U NITED STA TES DISTRICT C OIJR T FOR TIIE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA R OA NO K E D IW SIO N W AYN E E.H M LEY , Plaintiff, RED OM ON STATE PW SON,etaI., Defendants. BYJULW C. ,UDLEX LERK ; . . P K CivilA ction No.7:18cv00020 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) G M O R ANDU M OPIM O N By:M ichaelF.U rbanski ChiefU nited StatesD istrictJudge W ayneE.Hailey,aVirginia inm ateproceeding pro K ,comm enced this action pursuant . to42U.S.C.j1983,allegingthatthedefendantsviolatedhisconstitutionalrightsrelated tothe use of five-point restraints and two separate instim tionaldisciplinary charges. D efendants Red Onion State Prison (ç$Red Onion''),Qualifed MentalHealth Professional(SGQM HP'') Huftl CounselorGibson,Warden Kiser,and MajorTatefiled amotionto dispissandthe motion is ripe for disposition.1 After review ing the pleadings, the courtgrants in partand denies in part defendants'm otion to dism iss. 1. H ailey alleges that on February 3,2017,he cuthim self and,on February 24,2017,he reopenedthewound.Asaresult,defendantQM HP Fletcherplaced him in five-pointrestraints. 'fhenextday,defendantQMHPBuchanan orderedthathebeheldinthetsve-pointrestraintsfor an additionaltwenty-four hours. Hailey claim s thathe laid in hum an body waste for Hseveral hours''before he w as letup from the restraints and shoved into a cold showerby defendantSgt. Hailey v. Red Onion Prison et al D ixon. A Aer the cold show er, he w as not allow ed to dry off, w as put in a clean pair of Doc. 28 underwear,and w as re-strapped dow n,çfextra tight''by Sgt.Dixon and otherofficers. Hishands and feetlostfeeling and he w as in ttawfulpain''because ofthe tightrestraints. D efendantN urse M ccoy checked the restraints and said they w ere çtokay.'' H ow ever,he claim sthatthe strapsof 1TheotherdefendantsEledananswertoHailey'scomplaint.SeeECFN o.19. Dockets.Justia.com the restraints cutinto hisskin. He also claim sthatthere w as cold airblowing outofthe vents in the cell,w hich caused him to getçErealcold''and to shake. H ailey claim s thathe was tied down overand overagain,atleastsix tim es,during the <'ordeal-'' On a separate occasion,defendantCounselor Gibson charged Hailey w ith an instim tional disciplinary infraction for refusing to enter generalpopulation,and defendant W arden Kiser approved the charge. Hailey claim s thathe had an K'enem y problem ,''w hich he told W arden K iser about in w riting. Hailey argues that W arden K iser and Counselor Gibson w ere Stattem pting to force''him into generalpopulation,w hich w as a Kdangerous situation''where he could ttmaybe gethurtbad orkilled-'' Hailey claimsthatWarden Kiserand defendantM ajor Tate,head of security,knew his çssituation,''butnevertheless approved the disciplinary charge, ççlaughedaboutit,''anddtmadethreatsoffurtherharm to(himq.''Haileywasfoundguiltyofthe charge and fned.2 In hisresponse in opposition to defendants'm otion to dism iss,H ailey allegesforthe first timethatdefendantQM HP HuffGGgotinvolved by letting the ordealgolqon - knowlinglly w ithout caring.''3 Presum ably, H ailey w as referring to his placem ent in Gve-point restraints. Hailey also allegesthatM ajorTate saw him on the dayhewas1etup from therestraintsand M ajorTatetold him he would puthim <çstraightback down - no matterhow much pain and suffering (hejwasin.'' Healso statesthatCounselorGibsonwrotethedisciplinary charge for 2Althoughnotrelatedtoany ofthedefendantswho fledthe motiontodismiss, Hai leyalsoalleqesthathe attended ahearing fora separateinstitutionaldisciplinary chargeon M arch 8,2017. Atthe hearing,hlsadvisor, defendantSgtBerg,dtrepeatedeverything''thattheyhadtalkedabout,çe therebycausing Ehim)forsuretobefound guilty 100% . ':Hailey arguesthatan advisorshouldnotbeElallow edtobe aw itnessagainstam an.'' Hailey alleges that he consequently did not receive a ttfair hearing'' and defendant Heming Offcer Countsrshould Rstand accountable.'' 3ThecourttreatsHailey'sresponse in opposition (ECF No.25)asamotionto amend and grantsthe motion. refusingtoentergeneralpopulation while%sknowing. hewouldput(Hailey)inhann'sway,''and thatW arden Kiserknew ççwhatw asgoing on and ggve hisapproval.'' II. DefendantsRed Onion,QHM PHuftlCounselorGibson,W arden Kiser,andM ajorTate have m oved to dism iss Hailey's complaint against them . A .motion to dismiss pursuantto FederalRuleofCivilProcedure 124$(6)teststhelegalsuo ciency ofacomplaintto determine whether the plaintiff has properly stated a claim ;tGit does' notresolye contests surrounding the facts,them erits ofa claim ,orthe applicability ofdefenses.''Republican Partv ofN .C.v.M artin, 980F.2d943,952 (4th Cir.1992). ln consideringaRule12(b)(6)motion,acourtmustaccept allfactualallegationsin the com plaintastrue and m ustdraw allreasonable inferencesin favorof the plaintiff. Erickson v.Pardus,551 U.S.89,94 (2007). Legalconclusionsinthe guiseof factualallegations,how ever,are not entitled to a presum ption of truth. A shcroh v.lqbal,556 U.S.662(2009). A lthough a com plaintççdoes notneed detailed factualallegations,a plaintiffs obligation toprovidethegroundsofhisentitlelmentltoreliefrequiresmorethan labelsand conclusions, and a fonuulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements will not do-'' BellAtl.Corn.v. Twomblv,550 U.S.544,555 (2007)(citationsand quotationsomitted). çTactuMlallegations mustbe enough to raise arightto reliefabokethe speculative level,''id-,with alltheallegations in the com plainttaken astrue and allreasonable inferences drawn in the plaintiœ s favor,Chao v.RivendellW oods.Inc..415F.3d 342,346 (4th Cir.2005). Rule 12(b)(6)doesççnotrequire heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausibleon itsface.'' Twombly,550 U.S.at570. Consequently,ççonly a complainythatstatesa 3 plausibleclaim forreliefsurvivesamotion todismiss.''Iqbal,556U.S.at679(citingTwombly, 550U.S.at556).A claim isplausibleifthecomplaintcontainsççfactualcontentthatallowsthe courtto draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the m isconduct alleged,'' andifthereisEçmorethan asheerpossibilitythatadefendanthasactedunlawfully.''Ld.. aat678. ln orderto allow forthe developmentofa potentially m eritorious claim ,federalcourts have an obligation to construe pro t pleadings liberally. See.e.a.,Boaa v.M acD ouaall,454 U.S.364,365 (1982). Moreover,Eçllqiberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where ...there is a pro t com plaintraising civilrights issues.'' Sm ith v.Sm ith.589 F.3d736,738(4thCir.2009).Nevertheless,çtlpqrinciplesrequiringgenerousconstructionoîpro se com plaints are not ...w ithout lim its.'' Beaudettv.Citv of H nm pton,775 F.2d 1274,1278 (4th Cir.1985).<<A pro. K plaintiffstillmustallegefactsihatstateacauseofaction.''Bracevv. Buchapan,55F.Supp.2d416,421(E.D.Va.1999). 111. Hailey named Red Onion asa defendant. To state acauseofaction underj 1983,a plaintiffm ustestablish thathe has been deprived ofrightsguaranteed by the Constim tion orlaw s oftheU nited States and thatthisdeprivation resulted 9om conductcom m itted by a person acting undercolorofstatelaw. W estv.Atkins.487 U.S.42 (1988). Neithera statenoran entity consideredtobeanççarm''ofthestatecanbesuedtmderj1983.W illv.M ichiaanDep'tofState Police,491U.S.58,71(1989).BecauseRed Onionisconsidered anarm oftheCommonwealth ofVirginia,thisentity cannotbesued underj 1983. SeeW ill,491U.S.at65-70;M ccov v. ChesapeakeCorr.Ctn,788F.Supp.890(E.D.Va.1992). 4 IV . Hailey allegesthatCounselorGibson,W arden Kiser,and M ajorTatewere involved in Gsattem pting''to t'force''H ailey to go to generalpopulation despite Rlcnow ing''that it would be dangerous forhim . To the extentHailey is arguing thatthese defendants failed to protecthim , hisallegationsfail'to stateacognizable claim . An inm atehasan Eighth Amendmentrightto be protected from violence perpetrated by otherprisoners. D a 'nserv.Stansberrv,772 F.3d 340,346 (4th Cir.2014);see Farmerv.Brennan,511 U.S.825,833-35 (1994). To state a claim for dam ages against a prison official for failure to protect from inm ate violence, an inm ate m ust pleadfactsthatshow (1)hewasincarceratedunderconditionsposingasubstantialriskofserious harm,(2)theofficialwasdeliberately indifferenttothatsubstantialrisktohishealthand safety, and (3) the oftkial's deliberate indifference caused him harm. Farmer,511 U.S.at 834. A lthough he allegesthatthe defendants attem pted to force him into entering generalpopulation, H ailey does not allege thathe did,in fact,enter generalpopulation. Instead,he allegej thathe w as found guilty ofthe disciplinary charge forfailing to entergeneralpopulation and received a Gne for his conviction of the charge. Because H ailey does not allege that he w as acm ally incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm or that he actually . suffered any harm ,hehasnotstated a cognizable failure to protectclaim .'A ccordingly, the court w illgrantdefendants'm otion to dism issasto thisclaim . V. To the extent Hailey is alleging that W arden Kiser and Major Tate are liable as supervisors,hisallegationsfailtb stateacognizableclaim. Supervisory liabilityunderj 1983 m ay notbe predicated only on the theory of resoondeat superior. See M onellv.D ep't of Soc. 5 Servs.,436U.S.658,663n.7(1978).A claim thatprisonstaffdidnotfollow VDOC policiesor procedures also does not state a constitutionalclaim . See United States v.Caceres.440 U .S. ' 741,752-55 (1978);Riccio v.Cntv.ofFairfax.Va.,907 F.2d 1459,1k69 (4th Cir.1990) (holdingthatifstate law grantsmoreproceduralrightsthan theConstimtionrequires,astate's failuretoabidebythat1aw isnotafederaldueprocessissue).Toestablishsupervisory liability under j 1983, a plaintiff must show that:(1) the supervisor had acmal or constructive know ledgethata subordinate w as engaged in conductthatposed <ça pervasive and unreasonable risk''ofconstimtionalinjury to people liketheplaintiff;(2)the supervisor'sresponseto that know ledge w as so inadequate as to show . ççdeliberate indifference to ortacitauthorization ofthe alleged offensive practices'';and (3)thatthere was an EEaffirmative causallink''between the supervisor'sinaction andtheparticularconstitutionalinjury sufferedby theplainti/. Shaw v. Stroud,13 F.3d 791,799 (4th Cir.1994). To satisfy the requirementsofthefirstelement,a plaintiff must establish:(1) the supervisor's knowledge of (2) conduct engaged in by @ subordinate (3)where the conductposesa pervasive and unreasonable risk ofconstimtional injury to theplaintiff Slakan v.Porter,737 F.2d 368,373 (4th Cir.1984). Establishing a <çpervasive''and Gdunreasonablé''risk ofharm requiresevidence thattheconductis widespread,or at leasthas been used on severaldifferent occasions,and thatthe conduct engaged in by the subordinate poses an unreasonable risk ofharm ofconstitutional'injury. 1d.at373-74. A plaintiff m ay establish deliberate indifference by dem onstrating a supervisor's Rcontinued inactioninthefaceofdocumentedwidespreadabuses.''JZ at373. HaileyallegesthatW arden KiserandMajorTateapproved thedisciplinarychargetiled by Counselor Gibson, despite know ing about his ççsim ation.'' H ailey's vàgue and conclusory 6 allegations are insufficientto supporta finding of supervisory liability. As'such,the courtwill grant defendants' m otion to dism iss as to any supervisory liability claim against these defendants. W. Totheextentflailey allegesthatW ardenKiserandM ajorTatemadecommentsthatmay constim te verbalabuse,tlzreats,.orharassm ent,the com m ents alone do notrise to the levelof an EighthAmendmentviolation. Hensleev.Lewis,153F.App'x 178,l80(4th Cir.2005)(citing Collinsv.Cundy.603 F.2d 825,827 (10th Cir.1979$. The Constim tion does not Kprotect againstal1intrusions on one's peace ofm ind.'' Pittsleyv.Warish.927F. 2d3,7(1stCir.1991). Verbalharassm entor idle threatsto an inm ate,even to an extentthatitcausesan inm ate fearor emotionalanxiety,do notcpnstitute an invasion ofany identified liberty interest. See Em mons v.M cLaughlim 874 F.2d 351,354 (6th Cir. 1989) (stating verbaltlzreats causing fear for plaintifpslifenotaninfringementofaconàtitutionalright);Lamarv.Steele,698F.2d 1286 (5th Cir.1983)(çTllreatsalonearenotenough. A (941983 claim only accrueswhen thethreatsor threatening conduct result in a constimtionaldeprivation.'). Accordingly,the courtgrants defendants'motion.to dism iss as to any claim concerning threats made by W arden Kiser or M ajorTate. V II. Finally,Hailey allegesthatQMI' P Huffknew thatotherdefendantswere subjecting H ailey to crueland unusualliving conditionsw hile he w as in five-pointrestraints,choseto çtlet'' ithappen,anddidnotcare. Underatheoryoflystapderliability,anoftkermay beliableifhe orshe:R(1)knowsthatafellow officerisviolatinganindividual'sconstitutlonaldghts;(2)hasa 7 reasonable opportunity to preventthe harm;and (3)choosesnotto act.''. Randallv.Prince George'sCn/y.,302 F.3d 188,204 (4th Cir.2002). Thecourtfindsthat,acceptingthefacmal allegations as true and draw ing a1lreasonable inferences in favor of the H ailey,he has stated a plausibleclaim forreliefagainstQMHP Huff. Accordingly,thecourtwilldenythemotionto dismissastoabystanderliabilityclaim againstQMHPHuff. W II. Forthe foregoing reasons,defendants'm otion to dism iss is granted in partand denied in Part. ENTER:This$ r' dayof?? , 2019. ! f*f '/W ' .W ChiefU 'ed StatesDistdd Judge 8 W
]]>
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.
