Pitsenbarger v. Redman et al, No. 7:2018cv00050 - Document 33 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 1/17/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U,S. DIST.COUR' AT ROANOKE,VA FILED JAN 1? 2218 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W ESTERN DISTRIC T O F VIRG INIA RO AN OK E DIW SION BRIA N PITSENBA RG ER , Plaintiff, V. THOM ASREDM AN,c & , Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JULI ..DUD BY: , ' W CL' K CASE NO.7:18CV00050 M EM ORANbUM OPINION By:Hon.GlenE.Conrad SeniorUnitedStatesDistrictJudge The plaintiff, Brian Pitsenbarger, a V irginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,filed this civil . rightsactionunder42U.S.C.j1983,allegingthatprison ofticialscausedhim to servealonger tel'm ofconfinem entin violation ofdue process. He hasalso m oved for leave to supplem enthis com plaintw ith additionalexhibitsand argum ent,w hich the courtwillgrant. Afterreview ofthe record,the courtconcludesthatthe defendants'm otion to dism issthe com plaintas supplem ented m ustbegranted. 1. Backzround Pitsenbarger's claim s are based on events thatoccurred when he w as an inm ate a Cold SpringsCorrectionalUnit.1 Liberally construingPitsenbarger'sj1983' amended complaintand exhibits,he allegesthaton Septem ber19,2017,D efendantsPerry and A listock allow ed Officer Randozzo to use a hand-held drug testing device on Pitsenbarger, in violation of V irginia DepartmentofCorrections(:GVDOC'')procedures. UnderVDOC Operating Procedure CçOP'') Pitsenbarger v. Redman et al 841.54111),ahand-heldtestingdevicewasdetinedasSclaqportabledrugtestingdevice,suchasa Doc. 33 testslide,requiring no calibration orform alinstrum entation.'' Compl.Ex.A ,ECF N o.1-1. O P 1 Pitsenbargerisnow confinedatPocahont% CorrectionalCenter. Dockets.Justia.com RK 841.5(lV)(C)(2)(b)provided thatdsgilnstitutionsare notauthorized'to use a hand held testing device except''when staffobserved physicalsym ptom ssuggesting drug use orintoxication oron inmateswith certain medicalconditions. Id. OP 845.1(IV)(C)(2)(e)identifed an exception, stating thatGGjhland held testing devicesmay be used to testparticularsubstances,''including Suboxone. OfticerRandozzo reported thatthe testperform ed on Pitsenbargeron Septem ber 19, ' . 2017,w as positive for Suboxone. See Com pl.Ex.B,ECF N o. 1-l. A lthough Pitsenbarger claim ed thathe w as taking m edications thatcould cause a false positive on a drug test,no one wrote this inform ation dow n on a chain of custody form . That sam e day,Randozzo charged Pitsenbargerw ith a disciplinary offense ofbeing underthe influence ofan unprescribed drug.2 A tthe disciplinary hearing on Septem ber 26,2017,D efendant Houff told Pitsenbarger that.he could not have the dslab results'' from the test, as he had requested, although there allegedly were no lab results. Am .Com pl.1,ECF N o.25. H oufffound Pitsenbarger guilty of the offense, citing the positive test results and testim ony from Randozzo as the evidence on whidh he had relied.3 Superintendent Redm an allegedly failed to respond to Pitsenbarger's appeal of this outcome, thus depriving him of the opportunity to appeal to the regional adm inistrator. Pitsenbarger denies that he had taken any unlaw ful substances on Septem ber 19,2017. Thereafter, the lnstitutional Classitication Authority (<:1CA'') conducted a review of Pitsenbarger'sgood timeearning levelwithhim present. M ot.Am .Compl.Ex.D ,ECF No.25. Allegedly because ofthe positive drug test,the lCA changed his good tim e earning levelfrom a 2 TheDisciplinaryOffenseReport(çç DOR'')statedthatPitsenbargertestedpositiveforSuboxone,anda second drugtestperform edimm ediatelythereaftershowedthesam eresult. 3 Theplaintiff'sexhibitsindicatethatthedisciplinarypenalty im posed fortheoffensew asthelossofpay for60 Eeunpaid work hours.'' Com pl.Ex.B,ECF N o.1-1. Pitsenbarger'scomplaintfocuses on the subsequent reduction in his good time earning rate,how ever,and doesnotchallengethe validity ofthe disciplinary penalty itself. 2 1to a2,which caused hisprojected releasedatetobepushed back from October15,2019,to Novem ber 18, 2019. See .i Z at 2,Ex.E (noting that tsprojected dates are based on the assum ption thatthe offenderw illcontinue to earn good tim e atthe presenteam ing level''and a futureGtchangeingoodtimeearninglevel...may causetheprojecteddatestochange'). Pitsenbargerfiledthisj1983lawsuitinFebruary2018againstRedman,Alistock,Perry, andHouff,seekingmonetaryand injunctiverelief.Hecomplainsthatthesedefendantsallowed the use of results from a hand-held testing device as evidence to support his drug-related disciplinary charge and his classification change,in violation of prison policy and due process. The defendants have filed a m otion to dism iss, and Pitsenbarger has responded, m aking the m atterripe fordisposition. H . D iscussion A districtcourtshould dismissacomplaintunderRule 12(b)(6)oftheFederalRulesof CivilProcedure if,accepting a1lw ell-pleaded allegationsin the complaintastrue and draw ing all reasbnable factualinferences in the plaintiff'sfavor,the com plaintdoes notallege çEenough facts to state a claim to reliefthatisplausible on itsface.'' BellAtl.Corp.v.Tw om bly,550 U .S.544, 570(2007).<<(Ajplaintiffsobligationtoprovidethegroundsofhisentitlementtoreliefrequires m ore than labels and conclusions,and a form ulaic recitation ofthe elem ents ofa cause ofaction willnotdo.''ld.at555.4 Tostateaclaim underj 1983,aplaintiffmustallegeiGtheviolationof a rightsecured by the Constitution and law softhe United States,and m ustshow thatthe alleged deprivation w as com m itted by a person acting under color of state law .'' W estv.Atkins,487 U.S.42,48(1988). 4 The courthas om itted internalquotation m arks, alterations,and citations here and throughoutthis opinion,unlessotherwisenoted. Asan initialmatter,Pitsenbargerhasnoviablej1983claim basedonallegationsthatthe defendants violated prison policy by allowing use of a hand-held testing device or by allowing use of its results to support a disciplinary charge. lt is w ell established that state oftk ials' alleged violations of state policies and regulations are notsufficientto supporta claim thatthe plaintiff was deprived of constitutionally protected rights. See Riccio v.Cty.of Fairfax,907 F.2d 1459,1469 (4th Cir.1990)(holding thatstate'sfailure to abide by itsown procedural regulationsisnotafederaldueprocessissue).Thus,thecourtmustgrantthemotiontodismiss asto a1lclaim sthatthe defendantsviolated prison rules. Pitsenbarger's j1983 claim that Redman deprived him of his right to pursue a disciplinary appealis also withoutm erit. There is no constitutionalrightto an appealfrom the disciplinary factfinder'sdecision. See,e.g..W estbrook v.Koch,No.1:16CV480 (LMB/IDD), 2017W L 2589963,at*6 (E.D.Va.June 13,2017),appealdismissed,No.17-6854,2017 W L 6803019(4th Cir.Sept.5,2017)(ç:(11tiswidelyrecognizedthataninmatehasnorighttoappeal a disciplinary board's decision.'') (citing other cases). M oreover, Pitsenbarger's own subm issionsto the courtindicate thatRedm an responded to hisdisciplinary appealon O ctober 3, 2017. See V erif.Stmt.Attach.5-6,ECF N o.2. Redm an upheld the finding of guilt,noting that the drug test perfbrm ed on Pitsenbarger on Septem ber 19, 2017, was authorized under the prison'spolicy. Pitsenbarger ultim ately appealed Redm an's ruling to the regionaladm inistrator, who found no proceduralerrors and upheld theguilty fnding. Pl.'sEx.D ,at2,ECF N o.9. Pitsenbarger's prim ary contention is that allof the defendants allowed the use ofhandheld testresultsto causethe one-m onth shiftin his release date,thus depriving him ofa ttliberty interest''w ithoutdue process. W hile having to serve anotherm onth in prison isno sm allm atter, 4 the courtcannotfind thatPitsenbargerreceived thisadjustmentto histerm ofconfinementin violation ofhisconstitutionalrightto dueprocess. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Am endm entprohibits a state from depriving G&any person of life,liberty,orproperty w ithout due process of law .''U .S.Const.am end.XIV, j1.$dTostateaproceduraldueprocessviolation,aplaintiffmust(1)identifyaprotectedliberty orproperty interestand(2)demonstratedeprivationofthatinterestwithoutdueprocessoflaw.'' Prieto v.Clarke,780 F.3d 245,248 (4th Cir.2015). G&A liberty interestmay arise from the Constitution itself,by reason of guarantees im plicitin the word (libertys'or itm ay arise from an expectation orinterestcreated by state law sorpolicies.'' W ilkinson v.Austin,545 U .S.209,221 (2005)(citationsomitted). Toproveaprotectedliberty interestherearisingfrom astatelaw ôr regulation,Pitsenbargermustidentify (a) d1a basis foran interestorexpectation in state regulations''thathand-heldtestingdeviceswillnotbeusedininmatedrugtesting;and (b)show thatçEdenialofthis state-created interestresulted in an atypicaland significanthardship to him .'' Prieio,780 F.3d at250. Only ifPitsenbargermakesboth showingsdoestheDueProcessClause require a particular m easure of proceduralprotection before he can be deprived of his liberty interest.Sandinv.Conner,515U.S.472,484(1995). The courtconcludes thatPitsenbargerhas notm ade these show ings. First,the regulation in effectin Septem ber 2017 expressly authorized the use ofa hand-held tésting device to testfor Suboxone, the drug for which he tested positive. Thus, this regulation did not create an expectation thatthe resultsofa hand-held drug testing device w ould notbe used to inform prison disciplinary orclassification decisions,asthey were here. In any event,the courtalso cannottsnd thatPitsenbarger has stated facts to show thata decrease in an inm ate's rate ofearning good conducttim e is a harsh oratypicaldeparture from theexpectedcondidonsinprison,asrequiredtoproveaconstittdonslly protededlibertylnteres.t under Sandin and Prieto. On the conkary,Pitsenbarger's own exhlblts indicate thatthe 1CA couldr- djusthisgoodtimee-nrnlnglevelathisnextclassifkationstatusreview andchangehis projectedreleasedateyetagain.Fllrthe= ore,ltiswellestablishedthataVirginialnmatehasno constimtionally protected liberty intexstin any parucular mte of e- ing good condud time agaln'k hlssentence. M illsv.Holmes-'95F.Supp.3d 924,935 (E.D.Va.2015)(holding that Virginla lnmateshaveno protected llberty interestin good conductallowance enrnlng level) (dtingW estv.Anaelone.165F.3d22(4thCir.1998)(unpublished)(GnmnteshavenoprotedH libertyinterestinremm'nlng in orbeing assir ed to apnrtlctllargoodconductallowancelevel... 1 '');Jamesv..Robinson.45F.3d426(4thCir.1994)tsamell. . m . C onclusion For the stated reasons,the court concludes that Pltsenbarger's motlon for leave to supplement shall be F anted, and that defenrhnts' motlon to dismiss the comple t as supplementedmus'tbep anted.5 An appropriateorderwillissueherewith. The Clerk ls dlmded to send coples ofthls memoe dum opM on and accompanying orderto plaintlffaadto colmKelofrecordfortbe defendnnts. EN IER:n lq 11 day ofJanuary,2019. SeniorUnited StatesDisd ctJudge ' 5Pitsenbargc complnmR . tbatamendmeutstotheVDOC drtlgtestingproceurein2018taftœ heSledGis lawsuit)Omehow hdicateanattempttocoverupthedefendantq'allegedpolicyviolo ons.. 8-* LetterEx.1,ECF No.28. Havingreviewed theamended proced= ,thecoM cannotfndthatthe changeshaveany relaionship to thtscajeorthereasom behindtllecourt'sdecisioltogranttle defo dants'moiontodhml 'qs. 6
]]>
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.
