Stephens v. New River Valley Regional Jail, No. 7:2018cv00172 - Document 68 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 9/12/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
$ . $ ' CLERK'S OFFICE U,s. Dlsm cour AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W ESTE RN DISTR ICT O F VIR G INIA R OA N O K E D IV ISIO N CHARI,IE GRANT STEPHENS, Plaintiff, v. SGT.BYRD,ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SEP 12 2219 JULI BY; , CASE NO.7:18CV00172 M EM ORANDUM OPINION By: Hon.GlenE.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge Theplaintiff,Charlie GrantStephens,a Virginiainm ateproceeding pro K ,filed thiscivil rightsactionptlrsuantto42U.S.C.j1983.Stephensallegesthatafterhistransferfrom onejailto another,ajailofficialdiscriminatedagainsthim becauseofhisracebyrefusingtoretum hisBible and legalpapers,and otheroo cialsfailed to retrievethem forhim . Afterreview oftherecord, the courtconcludes that severalof Stephens'submissions,ECF Nos.38,49,50-53,must be liberally constnzed,jointly,as nmendments to Stephen's allegations. W hile such piecemeal construction ofthecomplaintisnotconsistentwith theFederalRulesofCivilProqedure,in light oftheplaintiffspro #: stam s,thecourtwillgrantthese nmendm entsand considerhisallegations .. aspresented in al1ofhisfilings. See,e.R.,Erickson v.Pardus,551U.S.89,90-95 (2007).ln so doing,thecourtconcludesthatthedefendantsareentitledtosllmmaryjudgment. 1. ' . Taking Stephens'am ended complaintin the lightmostfavorable to him ,he allegesthe following sequenceofevents.From January 2017 to January 2018,Stephenswasincarcerated at Stephens v. New River Valley Regional Jail Doc. 68 theW estern VirginiaRegionalJail(1ûW VRJ''). The W VRJchaplain provided Stephenswith a Gt ife Recovery Bible,''a specially designed version to help him reconnect to G od w hile also helpinghim in hisrecoveryfrom substance addictions.Verif.Brief.2,ECF No.50. Dockets.Justia.com . In January 2018,Stephens and Antwain Strange,an African Am erican inmate who had also received a Life Recovery Bible while at W VRJ,were transferred to a New River Valley RegionalJail(tW RVRJ'')facility.OnJanuary 10,2018,bothStrangeandStephensaskedSergeant (&çSgt.'')ByrdforpermissiontoretrievetheirBiblesandlegalpapers9om theirpersonalproperty. Byrd refused. Later,Byrd allowed Strange to collect llis property item s,including his Life R ecovery Bible. Stephensrenew ed lzis requestto recover his Bible and otherproperty item s,but Byrd refused,allegedly because ofStephens'race. Captain M urphy laterallegedly agreed with StephensthatByrd had likely rettumed Strange'sBible because ofhisrace.l ln January 2018,Stephensalso asked Sgt.éallforreturn ofhisBibleand legalpapers. Hallsaidthathewasnotallowed tohavethem . In Janumy,and again in February 2018,Stephens asked Captain M up hy forhisBible and legalpapers. M urphy said he would bring the item sto Stephenssoon,butfailed to do so. Compl.4,ECF No.1;Am .Compl.4,ECF No.17. Stephens also asked Sg4.Nowers,who said thathe would Eçlook into it,heneverdid.'' Am .Compl.3,ECF N o.17. W hen Stephens asked N owers again in February 2018,the sergeantsaid,GlYou're not goingtogetit(bible),sof' u**inggetoverit-''Id. In February 2018,Stephensalso told Captain Fleeman abouthistransferand hisdesireto have hisBible and papers. Fleem mlsaid he w ould ltcheck on itand getback to''Stephens. Brief 9,ECF No.38.He did not. W hen Stephensasked Sgt.M cNeily forreturn ofitisBibleand legal papers,thesergeantsaidthathecould havetheitemsback.Hetold Stephensto send him am itten request,and he w ould have the item s retum ed that snm e night. Stephens wrote the request,but neverreceived aresponse. l On August1,2018,Stephenstold Captain M urphy aboutByrd'sactions--denying StephenshisBible, whileallowing Strange toretrievehisBible ofthesametype. M urphy stated,StsYou know why hegothisand you didn'tgetyolzrs.' Stephensreplied EYes,becausehe'sblack.' Capt.M urphy nodded in agreement'' Verif.Brief2, ECF No.53. 2 Stephenswasnotprovided with acopy oftheNRVRJInmateHandbook untilApril2018. Thus,from January 10to m id-April2018,he did notknow thathe could requesta donated Bible from the prison library. W hen he verbally asked oftk ers forreturn ofhis Bible,no one told him abouthow to ask for a donated one. A fterhe received an inm ate handbook and learned there w as agrievanceprocedure,heasked,unsuccessfully,forgrievanceform s.Stephensalso followed the firststep ofthe grievanceprocedtlre,by filing num erousw ritten requestform s asking forrettm lof his Bible and papers. H enevergota response. Stephensfiled hisinitialj1983 complaintin April2018,suing only thejail. Afterthe courtnotified him thatthejailwasnota properdefendanttmder j1983,hefiled an amended complaintthatmisjoinedmany claims.Thecourtnotified him ofthisproblem,andinJuly2018, he filed a second am ended com plaint,nam ing these offcersasdefendants: Byrd,H all,M cN eily, Nowers,Fleeman,and M urphy. Stephensallegestwo constitutionalclaims:(1)the defendants deprived him ofaBible,in violation ofhisFirstAm endm entrightto freeexercise ofhisreligious beliefs;and (2)Byrddeniedhim equalprotection by discriminating againsthim because ofhis ' race,in violation ofthe Fourteenth Amendment. He seeksonly m onetary damages. On July 18, 2018,the courtserved the case on the defendants. . In lateM ay2018,theNRVRJchaplainadvised Stephensthatjailpolicypermittedhim to havehisBiblein hiscell.Thechaplaintold Stephenstowritearequest,and hewould check into it.Thechaplain neverreceived thatrequest. On August 1,2018,M urphy asked Stephens why the list of defendants in the law suit included M urphy. H e told Stephens,&C1thought1gave yourbible back to you,itw as m issing the coverand you asked w hy.'' Brief 12,ECF N o.38. Stephens said no one had returned hisBible. 3 M urphy retum ed the Bible to Stephens on August 8,2018. In Septem ber 2018,Stephenswas transferred to a state prison facility. Thedefendantshave sled am otion to dism iss,orin the altem ative,m otion forsllmm ary judgment,supported by affidavits. They argue thatStephens failed to exhaustadmirlistrative remediesregardinghisclaimsbeforefilingthislawsuit,asrequired under42U.S.C.j1997e(a), and thatthey are entitled to qualified im munity as to his claim s for dnmages. Stephens has respondedto theirmotion,m aking itripefordisposition.z I1. A .The Standard ofReview A m otion to dism issteststhe legalsufficiency ofa com plaint. See,e.g.,BellAtl.Corp.v. Twombly,550U.S.544,553-63(2007).$ç(T)hecomplaintmustbedismissedifitdoesnotallege enough factsto state a claim to reliefthatisplausible on itsface.'' G iarratano v.Johnson,521F.3d 298 302 (4thCir.2008).3 Thedefendantshavesupportedtheirmotiontodismisswith affidavits on which thecourth:srelied in reviewing theirargum entson exhaustion and qualifed im mllnity. If,on amotion underRule 12(b)(6)or 12(c),mattersoutside the pleadingsare presented to and notexcluded by the court,them otion mustbe treated asone for summary judgment tmder Rule 56.Al1 parties must be given a reasonable opportunity topresentallthematerialthatispertinenttothem otion. 2 W eeksafterfilinghisresponsetothedefendants'm otion, Stephensfileddiscoveryrequestsw iththecourt. Themagistratejudgegrantedthedefendants'motiontostaydiscovery,pendingthecourt'sdecisiononthedefendants' m otion. Stephenshasfailed to dem onstratethatany ofthediscovery inform ation herequested wasnecessaryto his responsetothedefendants'argumentsofexhaustionandqualitiedimmunity,asrequired.Fed.R.Civ.P.56(d). 3 Thecourthasom ittedinternalquotation m arks,alterations,andcitationshereandelsewheretllroughout thisopinion,unlessotherwisenoted. 4 Fed.R.Civ.P.12(d). Accordingly,the courtwillconsiderthedefendants'motion underthe summaryjudgmentstandard.4 An award ofsummary judgmentis appropriate Slifthe movantshowsthatthere isno genuinedisputeasto anymaterialfactandthemovantisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflam '' Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a).Foraparty'sevidencetoraiseagenuineissueofmaterialfactsufficientto avoid summaryjudgment,itmustbettsuchthatareasonablejtlry could ret' urn averdictforthe non-movingparty.''Andersonv.LibertyLobby.Inc.,477U.S.242,248(1986).lnmakingthis determination,Gçthe courtisrequired to view the factsand draw reasonable inferencesin a light mostfavorabletothenonmovingparty.''Shaw v.Stroud,13F.3d791,798(4thCir.1994). B. TheExhaustion ofAdm inistrativeRem edies A prisoner carmot bring a civilaction concerning prison conditions until he has first exhaustedavailableadministrativeremedies.42U.S.C.j1997e(a).Thisexhaustionrequirement is Gtmandatory.'' Ross v.Blake, U .S. - - , 136 S.Ct.1850,1856 (2016). To comply with j1997e(a),aninmatemustfollow eachstepoftheestablishedgrievanceprocedurethatthefacility providestoprisonersandmeeta11deadlineswithinthatprocedtlrebeforefilinghisj 1983action. SeeW oodfordv.Nco,548U.S.81,90-94(2006).W hetherornottheparticularfonnofreliefthe inmatedesiresisavailableunderthejail'sadministrativeprocedtlre,hemust,nevertheless,exhaust properly al1availablerem ediesunderthatprocedure before bringing a civilaction in this court. 1d.at85. The defendants bearthe burden ofproving the ax rm ative defense thatStephens failed to exhaustavailable administrative rem ediesregarding lzisclaim sbefore filing suit. Jonesv.Bock, 4 Asrequired by Roseboro v, Garrison,528F. 2d 309 (4th Cir.1975),the com'twarned Stephensthat judgmentmightbegranted forthedefendantsifhedid notrespondto theirmotion by tilingaftidavitsorother documentscontradicting theirargum entsand evidence. SeeN otice,ECF N o.26. Stephenshassubm itted veritied responsestothedefendants'motion,ECF No.38,andotherbriefsin response,towhichthedefendantshavereplied. 5 549U.S.199,212 (2007).Oncetheyhavedoneso,Stephensmayyetescapesummaryjudgment under j1997e(a)ifhe statesfactsshowing thatthe remediesunderthe established grievmwe procedurewerenotGtavailable''tohim .Ross,136S.Ct.at1859(notingthatcircllmstancesmaking prison grievanceproceduresunavailable tiwillnotoften arise''). Generally,Glan admiistrative rem edy isnotconsidered to have been available ifa prisoner,through no faultofhis ownswas preventedf' rom availinghimselfofit''Moorev.Bermette,517F.3d717,725(4thCir.2008). TheNRVRJhasan esetablished inm ate grievanceprocedure. SeeM em .Supp.M ot.Dism . Ex.1,W instonDecl.!!6-7,ECFNo.25-1. Ajailinmatewhowishestosubmitagrievancemustfirstsubmitaninmate requestform statinghiscomplaintand requesting agrievanceform . ln responseto the inm ate request, a shift comm ander meets with the inm ate to attem pt to inform ally resolve the com plaint. lf that attem pt is unsuccessful, the shift comm anderissuestheinm ateagdevanceform .ThatinitiatestheNRVRJ'Sfonnal grievance process. TheNRVRJhasathree-step formalgrievanceprocedureto addressinm ate complaints. An inmatefirstsubm itsa grievanceform detailinghiscomplaint.An adm inistrator responds to the grievance. Ifthe inm ate is notsatisfed with the adm inistrator'sresponse,the inmate can appealtothe deputy superintendent. The deputysuperintendentrespondstotheappeal.lftheinmateisstillnotsatistied,the inmate can appealto (the superintendent). (His)response isfinal. Once (the superintendenthaslrespondedtotheinmate'sappeal,Ehisjadministrativeremedies attheNRVRJareexhausted. J. tlsThereareseparateformsforinmaterequestsandinmategrievances.SuperintendentW inston, adefendantin thisaction,m aintainsrecordsofevery inmaterequestorgrievanceform filed atthe NRVRJ.W inston'srecordsdo notreflectthatStephenseverfiled any requestform orgrievance fonu abouthis claimsthathe wasthevictim ofrace discrimination and thatjailofficialshad repeatedly refused or failed to rettzrn his Bible. On this evidence,the defendants argue that Stephensfailedtocomplywithj 1997e(a)beforeflinghisj1983claims,andthathiscourtaction should bedism issedaccordingly. 6 GtExhaustion givesan agency an opportunity to correctitsown mistakeswith respectto the progrnm sitadministersbeforeitishaled into federalcourt.''W oodford v.N go,548 U.S.81,89 (2006).StephensdidnotgiveNRVRJofficialsthatopportunityregardinghisracediscdmination claim against defendantByrd. In response to the defendants'm otion,he has not alleged or providedany evidencethatheevertiledarequestfonn orasked foragrievanceto lodgehisclaim with oftkialsthathe had experienced racialdiscrimination atthejail. W ithoutevidence that Stephenseven attempted to utilizethejail'sgrievanceprocedure onthisissue,hehasnoviable claim thatthe procedure was unavailable to him to raise the issue. Accordingly,the courtwill grantthemotionforsummaryjudgmentunderj1997e(a)astohislmexhausted equalprotection claim. BecauseStephensisno longerconsned atthejail,thecourtwilldismissthisclaim with Prejudice. Stephensstatesin verifiedpleadings,however,thatasrequiredby thegrievanceprocedure, hefiled requestform sm any timesbetween January and August2018,asking forthereturn ofhis Bible.Heallegedlydidnotreceiveany responseto hisrequestform s.Healsostatesthatheasked for,butwasnotprovided with,a grievance form forthisissue.Finding m aterialdisputesoffact asto whetherjailoftkials'adionsmade the grievanceprocedtlretmavailableto Stephenswith regardtohisBible,thecourtcnnnotgrantsummaryjudgmenttmderj1997e(a)astohisreligious rights claim . 7 C.QualisedImmtmity The doctrine of qualified im mtmity shields governm ent officials from civil dnm ages liability Gçso long as their conduct ûdoes notviolate clearly established statutory or constitutional rightsofwhich areasonableperson would havelcnom A.'''M ullenix v.Luna, U .S. - - , 136 S.Ct. 305,308(2015)(quotingPearsonv.Callahan,555U.S.223,(2009)).GGTOovercomethisshield, aplaintiffmustdemonstratethat:(1)the defendantviolatedtheplaintiffsconstitm ionalrights, and(2)therightin question wasclearly establishedatthetimeoftheallegedviolation.''Adams v.Ferguson,884 F.3d219,226(4th Cir.2018);seealsoCrousev.Town ofM oncksCom er,848 F.3d 576,583(4th Cir.2017). In shorq Gsltlheprinciplesofqualified immllnityshield an officer 9om personalliability when an officerreasonably believesthathisorherconductcomplieswith the law .'' Pearson,555 U .S.at244. ûtlnm atesclearlyretainprotectionsaffordedbytheFirstAm endment,includingitsdirective thatno 1aw shallprohibitthe free exercise ofreligion.'' O'Lone v.Estate ofShabazz,482 U .S. 342,348(1987).çslnordertostateaclaim forviolationofrightssecuredbythe(FirstAmendmentj Free Exercise Clause,an inmate,asa threshold matter,mustdemonstrate that:(1)he holds a sincerereligiousbelief;and(2)aprisonpracticeorpolicyplacesasubstantialburdenonhisability topracticehisreligion.''W ilcoxv.Brown,877F.3d 161,168(4thCir.2017). (A1Eçsubstantialburden''isonethatputgsjsubstantialpressure on an adherentto m odifyllisbehaviorandtoviolatellisbeliefs,oronethatforcesapersontoEGchoose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting (governmentall benetits,ontheonehand,and abandoning oneofthepreceptsofherreligion on the otherhand. . Lovelacev.Lee,472F.3d 174,182 (4thCir.2006).Prisonpracticesdonotsubstantiallyburden an inm ate's rights if they m erely m ake his religious exercise m ore expensive,inconvenient,or even difficult. Calvarv Christian Ctr.v.CityofFredericksbtux,800F.Supp.2d760,774 (E.D. 8 I Va.2011)(citingLivingW aterChurch ofGodv.CharterTwp.ofM eridian,258 F.App'x729, 739 (6th Cir.2007)(unpublishedl);M idrash SephardieInc.v.Town ofSurfside,366F.3d 1214, 1227(11thCir.2004)(holdingthatsubstantialbtlrdenmustEGplacemorethananinconvenienceon religiousexercise').Moreover,becauseGGtheConstitutiondoesnotguaranteeduecareonthepart of state officials,''an officer's inadvertent or negligent deprivations of an inmate's ability to practice hisreligiousbeliefsdo notpresenta constitutionalclaim . Lovelace,472 F.3d at 194. Stephens has stated thathe is a Christian and thatw ithout a Bible for severalm onths at NRVRJ,hewasGçunabletopracticehisreligion''from January 1,2018,untilhisBiblewasretum ed to him on A ugust8,2018.A m .Com pl.4,ECF N o.17. In supportoftheirm otion,the defendants provideevidencethatGûlulnderNRVRJpoliùy,inmatesareallowedtokeepsoft-coveredbooksin theircells,including Bibles. TheNRVRJm aintains soft-covered Biblesthatare available atno costto inmatesupon theirrequest.'' M em.Supp.M ot.Ex.1,W inston Aff.!4,ECF No.25-1. SuperintendentW inston GGmaintainlslrecordsofevery inmate request''fonn filed by NRVRJ inmates.Id.at!5.Accordingtohisrecords,Cûstephensneverputinarequesttoreceiveoneof theJail'sbibles.''1d.at!4.Stephensdoesnotcontradictthedefendants'evidenceorallegethat heeveraskedanyone,verballyorinm iting,foraBible(otherthanhisownltofurtherhisreligious practice. Asaninitialmatter,Stephenshasnoj1983claim basedonallegedviolationsofjailpolicy. Section 1983 vindicatesonlyrightsprotectedby theConstitution orfederallaws,notstatelawsor jailpolicies. Rehberg v.Paulk,566U.S.356,361(2012). Thus,even ifjailofficials'alleged refusalsorfailtlrestoreturnStephens'Biblecouldbeconsideredviolationsofjailpolicy,theyare 9 notactionableassuchunderj 1983.5 SeeUnitedStatesv.Caceres,440U.S.741,752-55(1978); Ricciov.Cty.ofFairfax.Va.,907F.2d 1459,1469(4thCir.1990). Stephens'allegations also suggestthatmany ofthe defendantsintended to follow jail policy and retrieve his Bible,butthey failed to do so only outof oversight or confusion of one inmatewith another. Such actionsarenothing m orethan negligence and,thus,cannotsupporta claim thatthey deprived Stephensofconstitutionalrights. Lovelace,472 F.3d at 194. Stephensalso concedesthathe hadno constitutionalrightto possesshisown Biblewhile injail,andthecourtagrees.See,e.g.,Nicholsonv.Lolley,No.96-553+ -5,1999U.S.Dist.LEXIS 15534 at*60(S.D.Ala.Aug.19,1999)(holdingthatçiplaintiffhasnoconstimtionalrighttohave the use of his ow n personal . Bible while incarcerated.'). à4oreover,Stephens has not dem onstrated thathe suffered a substantialburden on his religiousrig 'hts while he was denied possession ofhispersonalBibleatNRVRJ.Hemay havepreferred hispersonalcopy oftheçctaife Recovery Bible''to assisthim with hisstruggleto overcomehisaddictions. However,hehasnot identified any religiousdifferencebetween thatBibleand otherBibles,norhashe identified any Christianpracticehecouldnothaveexercisedjustaswellwith adonatedBiblethatjailofficials would have provided to him upon request. Yet,over the eight-month period before offcials returnedhispersonalBible,Stephensneverrequested aBibleotherthan hisown.Thereisalso no evidencethathe attempted toptlrchaseanotherBible. Stephenssimplyhasnotstatedfactsshowingthatthejailpolicy orjailox cials'actions pressured him to violate his religious beliefs or to abandon any religious precept. Lovelace,472 F.3d at 182. Atthe m ost,the defendants'failure to return Stephens'personalB ible required him to m ake extra effortto regain that Bible or to take steps to obtain another Bible. M ere 5 The defendantshave allfiled declarationsstating thatifStephenshad asked them to retrievehis Bible,they would have done so. inconvenience and m inorexpense cannotconstitute a substantialbtlrden forptlrposesofa First A m endm entclaim .Living W aterChlzrch ofG od,258 F.App'x at739. Because Stephensfailsto demonstrate thatthe defendants'actions orpoliciesplaced a substantialbtlrden on hisreligious practice,he has not shown that they violated his First Amendm ent rights. Furthermore,the defendantscould reasonably believethattheirconductdid notdeprive Stephensofhisability to practicehisreligion.Rather,theycould reasonablyhaverelied on thejail'spolicy ofproviding inm ateswith aBible upon requestassuffcientprotection ofStephens'religiousneed foraBible. On thisrecord,thecourtconcludesthatthedefendantsareentitledto summaryjudgmentonthe grotm d of qualified im m tm ity against Stephens' claim s for m onetmy dam ages on his First A m endm entclaim . 111. Forthereasonsstated,thecourtwillgrantthedefendants'motionforsummaryjudgment. A n appropdate orderw illissue thisday. TheClerk isdirected tosend copiesofthism em orandum opinion and accompanyingorder to plaintiffand to counselofrecord forthedefendants. ENTER : This lQ day ofSeptember, 2019. # SeniorU nited States DistrictJudge
]]>
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.
