Shell v. Boyd et al, No. 7:2018cv00333 - Document 52 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 9/30/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cuuRx'sOFFICE u.s,Dlsmcour Ar ROANOKE,VA FILED IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH E W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W RGINIA R O AN O K E DIW SIO N sEP 3C 2215 JULI BY. - ROBERT EDW ARD LEE SH ELL Plaintiff, CA SE N O .7:18CV 00333 V. M EM OM NDUM O PINION H EATH ER L .BO YD ,ET A L., D efendants. By: H on.G len E .Conrad SeniorUnl ;ted StatesDistrictJudge Inthiscivilrightsactionunder42U.S.C.j 1983,theplaintiff,RobertEdward LeeShell, a VirginiaDepartmentofCorrections(&GVDOC'')inmateproceeding pro . K ,allegesthatprison officialshave violated his constitutionalrights in variousways. Afterreview ofthe record,the courtwillgrantthe defendants'motion for summary judgmentas to the claims the motion addressesand grantthem an opportunity torespond to theadditionalFirstAm endmentclaim that the courtherein identifies in Shell'scom plaint. L BA CK GRO UN D A . Claim s forRelief In Shell'sComplaint,ECFNo.1,whichisnotswonlorsigned underpenalty ofperjury, he assertsthatllisrightsunderthe First,Fifth,Sixth,and Fourteenth Am endmentsto the United StatesConstimtion were violatedby defendantsVD OC DirectorHarold Clarke and fourofficials atPocahontasStateCorrectionalCenter(Gtpocahontas'):W ardenYotmg,AssistantW ardenW alz, QualifiedM entalHea1thProfessionalHeatherL.Boyd,andlnstitutionalHearingsOfficerBandy. Shell v. Boyd et al The defendantshaveconstrued Shell'spro K pleading asattempting to state these claims:(1) Doc. 52 violations of the Fourteenth A m endm ent D ue Process Clause based on the im position of disciplinary penaltiesand confiscationsofhis previously approvedpersonalproperty items;(2) First A m endm entchallenges to a V D OC policy restricting the depiction of nudity in incom ing inmate publications (çGnudity policy''l;(3) a FirstAmendment challenge to VDOC policies h Dockets.Justia.com , prohibitinginmatesfrom possessingoriginalpiecesofincomingmail(ûicorrespondencepolicy'l; and(4)aFourteenthAmendmentDueProcesschallengetotheVDOC policyprohibitinghim from ordering specialfood packagesunlesshehasbeen freeofdisciplinary convictionsforsix months (Elfoodpackagespolicy''l.lShellseeksdeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefandrett. u. nofmoniestaken forhisdisciplinary fines. B.Confiscated Property Shellwas confined atPocahontas when the events atissue occurred.z O n N ovem ber 30, 2015,Boyd told Shellthatunder his treatm ent plan,he w as notallow ed to have photographs of M arion,hisdeceased girlfriend who isalso consideredthevictim ofhiscrim e,orany wom an who resem bled M mion. Boyd also gave Shellacopy ofthetreatmentplan,which hesigned. Compl. ' . . , Ex.F,2CF &o.1-iat118-19.ThisdocllmentsiatesthatShellisS&gpjrohibited from viewing or possessing any publications,materials,orphotoswhich m ay be detdm entalto thetreatmentplan orthatmaypromotesexually deviantbehaviors.Thisincludesmaterialsandphotosofvictimts). Untilrelease.''Id.at119.Shellthereafterattem ptedtorem ovefrom hisproperty itemsa11pictures ofM arion(manyofwhichhehadbeen allowedtopossessanddisplayforyears)andmailedthem to afriend outside theVDOC. 1Thedefendantshaveconstruedtheseclaimsfrom Shell'sgenerallystated,overlappingSscausesofActionj'' titled Rconstitutionality ofD efendants'Actionsy''ddRuleasAppliedy''and do enialofDue Process.'' Compl.28-33, ECF N o.1. They requestan opporttm ity to brief any additionalclaim sthatthe courtm ay recognize in Shell's subm ission,and asstated,thecourtwillgrantthatrequest. ThecourtadvisesShellthathisgrossmisjoinderofunrelatedclaimsinthiscasehasgreatlyhamperedthe effoz' tsofthedefendantsandthecourtto wirmow outhislegalclaimsand adequately addressthem. UnderRules 18 and 20 oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,Shellshouldhave filed aseparatelawsuitforeach ofthefourclaim s the defendantshave identified: theconfiscatedproperty claim s,thenuditypolicy claim s,thecorrespondencepolicy claim ,and thefood packagesclaim . H ispro K stam sdoesnotexcusehisblatantfailureto com ply with courtrules andorders. 2 Thepadies'evidenceofevents,assumm arizedhere,islargely undisputed,exceptwherbotherwisenoted. See Compl.Ex.,ECF N o.1& 1-1;M em .Supp.M ot.Sum m .J.Smalling Aff.andBandy Aff,ECF Nos.10-1& 102. Shell'sClaim (1)includesdueprocesschallengesto severaldisciplinary proceedingsat Pocalm ntas. ln response,the defendants offer an A ffidavit f' rom H earings O fficer Bandy w ith docllmentation ofthe challenged proceedingsattached. M em .Supp.M ot.Sllm m .J.Bandy Aff., ECF No.20-1.A copy ofVDOC OP 861.1,OffenderDiscipline,which setsouttheguidelinesfor the inmate disciplinary proceedings,isattached to Bandy'sAffidavit. Id.at10-49. Bandy states that Shell was afforded a11 applicable due process rights under OP 861.1 with regard to the challengeddisciplinarycharges.BandyAff.!35. On August16,2016,Boyd placed an institutionalchargeagainstShell,PSCC-2016-1019, forpossession ofcontraband- anew spaperarticle aboutShell'scrim esthatincluded apicmre of hisvictim.Compl.7-8andEx.A,ECFNo.1-1at2-3,7-16.;BandyAff.!! 10-13andEx.57-73. The staff investig' ation of the charge concluded on August 16,2016,the Disciplinary Offense Report(ç$DOR'')was served on Shellthatsame day at2:25 p.m.,3 and he signed the report indicating thathe had been inform ed ofthe charge againsthim and advised ofhisrights. Shell madearequestfordocumentaryevidence,whichBandyrejectedasnotbeingtimelyfiled.Bandy conducted adisciplinary hearing on August24,2016,and found Shellguilty ofthe PSCC-20161019 contraband charge,based on theReporting Offcer'stestimony thatitem sprohibited tmder Shell'streatm entplanhad beenfoundinhispossession.Bandyimposeda$15fine.Shellappealed hisconviction andthe $15 fne,and W arden Yotm gupheld Bandy'srulings. Shellalsohad other confiscated item sm ailed to his giend forsafekeeping. Ofticerssearched Shell'spersonalpropertytwice on October21,2016,and confiscated 21 photographs and other materials for Boyd to inspect. Boyd later retunwd m any m aterials, including fourofthe photographs,butshe advised Shellthatotherm aterialsviolated lzistreatm ent 3 ShellcontendsthatKslnloneofthechargesBoydwrotewereservedwithin''thetimelimitsoutlined in VD OC OP 861.1RH,which requiresthatthe So isciplinary Offense Reportshould be served on the offenderby midnightofthenextworkingdayfollowingthediscoveryoftheallegedoffense.''Compl.!31.Thedocumentation attachedto Bandy'sA ffidavitprovesotherwise,and Shellhasofferedno evidencetorefuteit. 3 plan.Shellwaspennitted to authorizeoo cialstom ailtheconfiscated materialstoafriendoutside the VDOC for safekeeping tmtilhis release. The friend has advised Shellthatthe m aterials received didnotincludethe 17 additionalphotographsthatofficerstook from Shell.4 OnN ovember221 20161 Boydm otetllreeadditional,allegedly ççfalseand illegal''charges . againstShell,including PSCC-2016-1644forunauthorizeduseofa1aw librarytypewriter.Compl. Ex.E,ECF No.1-1;Bandy Aff.!! 14-17and Ex.74-88.Thestaffinvestigation leadingtothis charge wascom pleted on N ovember22,2016,the DOR wasserved on Shellat5:13p.m .,and he signed the reportindicating thathe had been infonned ofthe charge againsthim and advised of his rights. Shellrequested docllm entary evidence,which Bandy approved and obtained. Bandy found Shellguilty oftheoffense,based on Boyd'stestim ony thatShellhad usedthetypewriterin the 1aW library to type a documçntthatwasnotintended foran active legalcase oraction,and imposed a $15 fine. AssistantW arden R.W alz upheld the conviction on appeal. Fdrthe sam e conduct,Shellwasalso suspended from usingthe1aw libràry forsix monthsformisuseof(itsj resotlrces. Com pl.Ex.E,ECF N o.1-1 at98. In PSCC-2016-1645,Boyd charged Shellw ith possession of contraband for having the handwritten notesby his attorney,describing Shell'scrim e. Compl.Ex.F,ECF No.1-1at108- 122;BandyAff.!! 18-21andEx.89-105.Thestaffinvestigation endedonNovember22,2016, the DOR wasselwed on Shellat4:57 p.m .,and he signed thereportindicating thathe had been irlfonned of the charge against him and advised of his rights. Shell requested docllm entary 4 Shell,through his friend,has submitted to the courtcopiesofthe materialsconfiscated in Augustand October2016 thatthe giend received 9om Shell' ,thesematerialsarenow on the court'sdocketasExhibitC to his response in opposition.Pl.Resp.Ex.C,ECF N o.36. Shellhasalsopursuedgrievancesaboutthecontiscationofthesepropertyitem s.Heattachestohiscom plaint acopy ofRegularGrievancePSCC-16-REG-00l2j,seekingthereturn ofhisproperty confiscated on October21, 2016. Com pl.Ex.B,ECF N o.1-1 at18-27. W alzfound Shell'sGrievanceunfounded,and Shellunsuccessfully appealedhisdecision.InanotherRegularGrievance,PSCC-17-REG-00015,Shellprotestedthat13photop aphswere missing 9om hisconfiscated propeo .Compl.Ex.C,ECF No.1-1at50-54.W alzfoundthisGrievanceunfounded, andthatdecisionw asupheldon appeal. 4 evidence,which Bandy obtained.Bandy found Shellguiltybased on Boyd'stestim onythatShell had in his possession two handwritten pages describing sexualacts- items prohibited by his treatm entplan.On November30,2016,Bandy foundhim guilty ofthischargeand imposeda$15 fine. Shell'sappealwasunsuccessful. In PSCC-2016-1646, Boyd charged Shell with failure to follow posted nzles and regulationsforpossessingthestateinm atentunberofafonnerVDOC inmate.Compl.Ex.G,ECF No. 1-1 at 124-135;Bandy Aff.!! 22-25 and Ex.106-121. The staff investigation ended Novem bér22,2016,theDOR wasserved on Shellat5:07 p.m .thatsam ed>y,and hesigned the reportindicating thathehad been izlform ed ofthe charge againsthim and advised ofhisrights. He requested docum entary evidence,which Bandy obtained. On Novem ber 30,2016,Bandy fotmdSheliguiltybased on Boyd'stesiimonythatShellhadinhisposàessionanotheroffender's name and ID num berand Shell'sadm ission thatthe inm ate had given itto him . Shellappealed his ''conviction and $15 fine,and W arden Young upheld the conviction. On Jtme22,2017,Boyd wrotealevel100 disciplinarychargeagainstShell- PSCC-20171031,forpossession ofBoyd'spersonalinfonnation. Com pl.Ex.H,ECF 1-1 at137-45;Bandy Aff.!!26-30andEx.122-27,ECFNo.20& 20-1.ThischargestatedthatShellpossessedacopy ofBoyd'sstatelicenseasam entalhealth worker. The staffinvestigation concluded on June 21, 2017,theDOR wasserved on Shellat4:57thefollowing day,andhesigned thereportindicating thathehadbeen inform ed ofthe chargeagainsthim and advised ofllisrights.Bandy folmd Shell guiltyofthischargebasedon Boyd'stestim ony and,asapenalty,suspended Shell'stelephoneand kiosk (email)privilegesfor45 days. On appeal,afterShellhad served mostofthesuspension tim e, W arden Y otm g dism issed the charge, based on irlform ation in Shell's appeal and on his conclusion thatthe docum entw as a public docum ent,nota copy of Boyd's license,that did not include personalintbrm ation im pennissible forShellto possess. Shellcontendsthatbecause this level 100 charge was not immediately removed from his record after its dismissal,officials . increased his security leveland transferred him to ltiverNorth Correctional Center CGltiver North'l,ahigherseclzrityandmorerestrictivefacilitythan PocahonGs. On June 22,2017,Boyd also wrotePSCC-2017-1032,chatging Shellwith possession of contraband forhaviùg materialsprohibited by ltistreatmentplan because they related to his conviction andprom oted sexually deviantbehavior.Compl.Ex.1,ECF N o.1-1at147-59;Bandy Aff.!!31-34andEx.128-42.Thestaffinvestigation concludedon Jtme22,2017,theDOR was served on Shellthatsame day,and he signed thereportindicating thathe had been infonned of the charge againsthim and advised ofhis rights. The confiscated item s w ere pdnted pages f' rom Tony W ard's website that contained sexually-related m aterial about Shell's victim and an advertisem entfrom aVocuem agazinethatdepictedtwowom enm uppingeach otherin sticlcings. Bandy found Shell guilty of this offense based on Boyd's testimony and imposed a loss of telephonemid kiosk privilegesfor45 days.W arden Young upheldhisconviction on appeal. C.Adm inistrativeRemedies lnsupportofthedefendants'motionforstlmmaryjudgment,theysubmitanAffidavitfrom C.Smalling,the Hum an RightsAdvocate atPocahontas,as evidence ofthe available grievance proceduresand Shell'suseofthem . M em .Supp.M ot.Sumrp.J.Sm alling Aff.,ECF No.10-1.A copy ofOP 866.1,OffenderGrievanceProcedure,wasattached to Smalling'sAfsdavit.1d.at7. 19. Sm alling is responsible for m aintaining grievance files on inm ates at Pocahontas. The procedures in OP 866.1 provide a mechanism for inm ates to resolve com plaints, appeal adm inistrative decisions,and challenge the substance ofprocedures. The procedures also provide V D OC adm inistratorsw ith a m eansto evaluatepotentialproblem s,and,ifnecessary,correctthose problem sin a tim ely m anner. 6 Under OP 866.1,a11issuesare gdevable exceptthose pertaining to policies,procedures anddecisionsoftheVirginiaParoleBoard,disciplinaryhearings,stateandfederalcourtdecisions, lawsandregulations,andothermattersbeyondthecontroloftheVDOC.OP 866.1(IV)(M )(2). Am ongtheissuestheprocedurelistsasgrievableby offendersare: Procedures of the facility,region,division,and departm ent w hich affect the mievantpersonally Actionsofindividualemployeesand/oroffenderswhich affectthegrievant personally.... OP866.1(IV)(M)(1)(emphasisadded).RegularGrievancesmustbesubmittedwithin30calendar daysf' rom the dateofocc= ence/incidentordiscovery oftheoccurrence/incident.Only oneissue m ay be addressed per Grievance. The inm ate m ust attach to the Regular Grievance a11records necessary to investigate his com plaint, including a copy of the Inform al Com plaint form , if required,and the staffresponse to it. ' RegplarGrievancesthatdo notm eetthe tiling requirem ents ofOP 866.1arerettm led to . . ' . . ' . the inm ate w ithin tw o w orldng days from the date of receipt,noting the reason for return on the intake section ofthe Grievanceform .Theinm ate isinstnzcted how to rem edy any problemswith theRegularGrievrncewhen feasible,and he may then resubm itit. Ifan inmatewishesto obtain review of the intake decision on any Grievance,he must send it to the applicable Regional Om budsm an w ithin five calendardays ofreceiptfora determ ination. There is no further review oftheintake declsion. OP 866.1 states: An offender m eets the exhaustion of rem edies requirem ent only when a RegularGrievance hasbeen'carried through the highesteligible levelof appeal w ithoutsatisfactory resolution ofthe issue. . . . . Ifa RegularGrievance doesnotmeqtthe criteria foracceptanceand review by the RegionalOmbudsman gand) does not resultin intake into the grievance process,theissue m ustbe resubm itted in accordancew ith the criteria for acceptance. The exhaustion ofremedies reqtàirementwillbe metonly when the Regular G rievance has been accepted into the grievance process and appealed through the highesteligible levelw ithoutsatisfactory resolution ofthe issue. . OP 866.1(1V)(O)(2). IfaRegularGrievance is accepted atintake,the W arden ora designeereview sitand issues aLevelIresponse.IftheoffenderisdissatisfkdwiththeLevel1determination,hemayappealto LevellI,triggering review ofthe Level1 response by the RegionalAdministrator or another appropriate adm inistrator. Form ostissues,Level11isthe finallevelofreview. Forthoseissues appealabletoLevel111,theDeputyDirectorortheDirectoroftheVDOC conductsareview ofthe inm ate'sissue andtheLevel1and 11determinations. Acçordingto Smalting,VDOC recordsindicatethatShellwasinclceratedatPocahontas from Apyil29,2009,untilhis tralpfer to Itiver N orth on A pril4.2018. Sm alling statesthatshe . '. . . . . ' *' ' - ' .' hasreview ed Shell's Grievalw e file atPocahontasforany Grievancesrelated to any issues he has raised in this case. ln Shell'sRegularGrievance PSCC-17-REG-00020,stamped asreceived on M arch 1!, 2017,Shellwrote: ThePRC gpublicatlonsReview Committee)hasdisapprovedmyDec.2016 issueofShutterbuc magazineforcorgainingnudity. Thepolicy bnnningnudityisover-broad.Courtshaveconsistently heldthat such over-broadpoliciesareunconstitutional. Furtherm ore,the policy is sim ply silly.... Com pl.Ex.J,ECF N o. 1-1 at 171. Sm alling nlled this G rievance to be tm fotm ded,and Shell appealedthathnding through LevelII1ofthegrievanceprocedures,where ChiefofOperationsA . D avid R obinson upheld the disapprovaldecision ofthe PRC forthispublication. 1d.at173. Sm alling states, cT his grievance, how ever, only addressed the single issue of Shell's December20f6 tshutterbug'magazinebeingdisapproved.''SmallingAff.! 11andEncl.B.As indicated above, this Grievance also challenges the nudity policy as overbroad and unconstitutional. According to Sm alling,thepublicationspolicy wasnmended on April1,2015, toincludetheprovisiondefiningandprohibitingnudity.1d.at! 12.SmallingstatesthatShelldid notfilea RegularG rievalw e challenging thatpqlicy w ithin 30 daysofthepolicy changeasrequired tmderOP 866.1. Shellcontends thathe grieved the VD OC'S nudity policy as soon ashe was directly affecfed byx thepolicy.Resp.Opp'n 15,ECF No.33-1. Shell filed a Regular Grievance com plaining that his O ctober 2016 issue of V ogue m agazine w as disapproved for contiirling nudity. Com pl.Ex.J,ECF N o.1-1 at 188-89. On this Grievance,Shellalso wrote: CçYotlr policy banning allnude images is overbroad,m aking no distinctionbetweensexualnudityandartisticnudity.''SmallingrejectedthisGrievanceonintake foran expired filing period and wrote,tdpolicy in effectsince 4/1/15 cannotgrieve contentof policy,onlydisapprovalsofspecitlicjitem's.'' ShellfiledaRegularGrievancicompla'ining'thathisSepiimbei22,2016,issueofRollilik Stonemagazinewasdisapprovedforcontainingnudity.ld.at166-67.Smallingrejecteditforan expired sling period and wrote,(T olicy in effectsince4/1/15--cannotgrieve contentofpolicy, only disapprovalsofspecitk item s.'' Shellhasnotprovided evidence thathe appealed this intalce decision. Shell filed a Regular Grievance complaining that his Julf/August 2016 issue of Ranzefindermagazinewasdisapprovedforcontainingnudity.Ld-usat200-01.OnthisGrievance, Shellalso com plained thatthepolicy bnnning a11publications containing nudity was overbroad and,therefore,tmconstitutional. Smalling rejectedtheGrievanceon intakeforan expiredtiling period. Sm alling w rote,lipolicy in effect since 4/1/15- cnnnot grieve content of policy,only . ' . ' . ' ' ' .' disapproval of specific item s.'' Shell has not provided evidence that he appealed this intake decision. 9 ln aRegularGrievance in August2017,Shellcomplained thatthedisapprovalofhisJlme 2017 issue of Vozue magazine for nudity and the VDOC nudity policy were blatantly unconstimtional. Id.at155-86. SmallingrejededthisGrievanceonintakeforan expiredfiling period,and wrote,çtprocedttretook place 07/01/2015.'' Shellhasprovided no evidence thathe appealed thisintakedecision. Shell'sRegularGrievance,stamped asreceived on August31,2017,complained thatthe disapprovalofhisJtme 15,2017,issue ofRollinc Stonem agazine fornudity and OP 803.2 were blatantlyunconstitutional.1d.at169-70.SmallingrejectedthisGrievanceonintakeforanexpired filing period,and wrote,(Troceduretook place07/01/2015.'' Shellhasprovided no evidencethat he appealed thisintakedecision. shell'sRegularGrievance,stamped asreceived on August31,2017,complained thatthe disapprovalofhisJune2017Vocuemagazinefornudityand OP 803.2 asm ittenwereblatantly tmconstitutional. 1d.at192-93. SmallingrejectedthisGrievanceon intakefôran expiredfiling period,and wrote,çsprocedttre took place 07/01/2015.'' Shellhasprovided no evidence thathe appealed thisintake decision. Shell subm itted an Inform al Complaint, PSCC-17-1NF-00216, on M arch 20, 2017, regardingane' w incomingcorrespondencepolicy.SmallingAff.!13andEncl.C.IntheInformal Complaint,Shellstated thatitwas improperforthe VDOC to m ake black and white copiesof colordocumentsand photossentto him through the mailand then destroy thecolororiginals,as thenew policy would require. Sm alling responded to Shell'sInform alComplainton M arch 22, 2017,and advised him thatthe new policy wouldtakeeffecton April17,2017,and thatinmates w ould have 30 days from thatdate to file a R egularGrievance aboutthe change. Sm alling states that Shell did not file a Regular Grievance regarding the new VD OC policy on offender correspondence. 10 Shellsubm itted an Inform alCom plaint,PSCC-17-m F-00346,dated M ay 3,2017,stating thatitwasunacceptabletohim to havecolorphotosthathadbeen senttohim photocopiedin black andwhitewiththeoriginalsdestroyed. SmallingAff.! 14 andEncl.D. Smallingrespondedto him on M ay 4,2017,and advised him thatthe update to the policy w asm ade statew ide,and staff atPSCC follow procedureswhen copyingm ailentering the facility. She also infonned Shellthat offenders could receive fullcolorphotographsthrough theirJpay players. Sm alling states that Shelldid notfile a Regular Grievancd regarding the VD OC 'S am ended correspondence policy's prohibition on originalphotographs. Sm alling also reports thatherreview of Shell's Pocahontas G rievance file does notshow thatheeversubm itted any Inform alComplaintorRegularGrievanceregarding theVDOC food package policy. In his response in opposition,Shellconcedesthathe did notfile any Regular Grievance aboutthispolicy.R esp.Opp'n 17,ECF N o.33-1. II.DISCU SSION A .The Sllm mary JudgmentStandard Thestandard forreview on amotion forsllmmaryjudgmentiswell-settled. The court should grantsllmmaryjudgmentonlywhen thepleadings,responsestodiscovery andtherecord revealthatçlthere is no genuine dispute as to any m aterialfact and the m ovantis entitled to a judgmentasamatteroflaw.''Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a);see,e.c..Celotex Cop.v.Catrett 477U.S. 317 322-23(1986);Andersonv.LibertyLobby.Inc.,477U.S.242 250(1986);M atsushitaElec' . lndus.Co..Ltd.v.Zenith Radio Corp.,475U.S.574,586-87 (1986).A genuinedisputeoffact existsGtifthe evidence issuch thata reasonablejtuy couldrettzrn averdictforthe nonmoving party.'' Anderson,477 U.S.at248. ln considering a motion forslzmmaryjudgment,the court m ust view the facts and the reasonable inferences'to be draw n from the facts in the light m ost favorabletothepartyopposingthemotion.Seety-.,477U.S.at255, .M atsushita,475U.S.at587. To besuccessfulonamotion forsllmmaryjudgment,amovingpartyGsmustshow thatthereisan absenceofevidenceto supportthenon-m ovingparty'scase''orthatKltheevidenceisso one-sided thatone party mustprevailasa matteroflaw.''Lexinglon-south Elkhom W aterDist.v.City of W ilmore.Ky.,93 F.3d 230,233(6th Cir.1996).W henamotionforsummaryjudgmentismade and isproperly supported by affidavits,depositionsoranswersto interrogatories,the nonmoving party m ay notreston themereallegationsordenialsofthepleadings. See Oliverv.Va.Dep'tof Corrs.,No.3:09CV000562010,W L 1417833,at*2 (W .D.Va.Apr.6,2010)(citingFed.R.Civ. P.56(e)). Instead,the nonmoving party mustrespond by ax davitsorotherwise and present speciûcfactsfrom which ajurycouldreasonably findforeitherside. SeeAnderson,477U.S.at 256-57. Thedefendantshavefiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,supported withaffidavitsand docum entation.They arguethatVhellhaspresentednom aterialdispute'offacton which he could persuade a factfindeito find in his favor. Shell's Com plaintand hisfilingsin réjponse to the defendants'motionarenotswornorfiledunderpenaltyofperjury.Shellhasalsofiledapleading titled GçM otion forSllmm ary Judgm ent''ECF No.12. Itdoesnotmeetthe definition ofsuch a motion,however. Rather,the courtconstrues it as a motion to strike the defendants'answer. Shell's m otion complains thatthe defendants'asserted defenses rely,in pat't,on a num ber of docllmentsinitially attachedtotheirsummaryjudgmentmotion,manyofwllichwereredactedto disallow Shellfrom possessingitem spreviouslyconfscatedfrom him askiolàtiveofhistreatment plan. Later,however,the courtgranted the defendants'm otion to amend their pleading and evidencetoexcludethedocllm entsatissue. SeeM ot.Am end.2-3,ECF No.20.Finding no legal grotmdjustifyingShell'smotiontostrikethedefendants'answer,thecourtmustdenyit. 12 B.Failureto ExhaustAdm inistrativeRemedies Under 42 U.S.C.j 1997e(a),a prisonercnnnotbring a civilaction concerning prison conditions until he has first exhausted available adm inistrative rem edies. This exhaustion requirementisççm andatory.'' Rossv.Blake, U .S. - - , 136S.Ct.1à50,1856(2016).Tocomply with j 1997e(a),aninmatemustfollow each step oftheestablished grievanceprocedurethatthe facilityprovidestoprisonersandmeeta11deadlineswithinthatprocedurebeforetilingllisj1983 action. SeeW oodfordv.Nco,548U.S.81,90-94 (2006)(finding inmate'stmtimelygrievance was not Eçproper exhaustion''of available administrative remedies under j1997e(a)). The defendantsbeartheburden ofproving theafsrmativedefensethatShellfailedtoexhaustavailable adm inistrativerem ediesregardinghisclaimsbeforefiling suit. Jonesv.Bock,549 U.S.199,212 (2007). ThedefendantsarguethatShellfailed to exhustadministrativereiediesasto hisclaim s ' challengingtheVDUC nuditypolicy- claim (2),thecorrespon'dencepolicy- claiin (3),andthe food packagespolicy- claim (4). Shellconcedesthathe did notexhausthis administrativ'e rem edies as to the food packagespolicy. H e also has notsubm itted any sw orn statem entorother evidenceto refm ethedefendants'evidencethathedid notfile aRegularGrievance complaining aboutthe correspondenc, e policy. Therefore,the courttsndsno genuine dispute ofm aterialfad andwillgrantsummaryjudgmentforthedefendantsasto Claims(3)5and (4)under42 U.S.C. j1997e(a). 5 M oreover, even i fShellhad exhaustedClaim (3),itiswithoutmerit. ThiscourtandtheUnited States District Courtforthe Eastern D istict ofV irginia have both upheld as constitm ionalthe portion ofthe VD OC correspondencepolicy prohibiting inmates from receiving originalpiecesofm ailand photop aphs. See Strebe v. Kanode,No.7:17cv321,2018WL 4473117(W .D.Va.Sep.18,2018)(slipcopy);Bratcherv.Clarke.No.1:17cv474, 2018WL 4658684(E.D.Va.Sep.26,2018)(slipcopy). Ineach case,thecourtruledthatthispolicyisrationally relatedtolegitimatepenologicalinterests.SeeLd=at*6-12;Strebe,2018WL 4473117!at*6-7(b0thcitingthefour factorsofTurnerv.Satlev,482 U .S.78,89 (1987:.Shel l'sfacialchallengetothepollcyisasubstantivelysimilar, . butevennarrower2claim thantheonethecom'tsconsideredinBratcherandStrebe.FindingtherationaleintheStrebe and Bratcher declsionsto be applicable and persuasive here,the courtwillalso grantthe defendants,summ ary judgmentmotionastoClaim (3)aswithoutmerit. l3 'liecourtcarmotreachthesameconclusion astoClaim (2),regardingthenuditypolicy. TheevidenceindicatesthatShellfully exhaustedhisadministrativeappealson RegularGrievance PSCC-17-REG-00020,which complained aboutboth thedisapprovaloftheDecember2016issue ofShutterbua magazine and the constitm ionality ofthe nudity policy itself. On the face ofthis RegularGrievance,Shellwrote: Thepolicy bnnning nudity isover-broad.Courtshaveconsistentlyheld that such over-broad policiesarelm constitm ional. Furtherm om ,the policy is sim ply silly.... SmallingAff.Encl.B,ECF No.10-1at20-24. Sm alling accepted thisGrievance on intake,W alz issued a LevelIresponse,and Shellthen pursued the m attertllrough LevelIl1ofthe g' rievance procedures.Thefactthatprison officialsnow claim thattheyaddressedonly oneportion ofShell's Grievance doesnotm ean thatShellfailed to fully exhaustboth portions- his challenge to the policy itselfand hiscomplaintaboutdisapprovalofhismagazine. Thedefendantsarguethat,to betim ely fled,any Grievancechallenging thisnudity. policy should havebeen filed within 30 daysofthepolicy'seffective date. Yet,OP 866.1statesthatto be grievable,a policy orprocedure mustaffectthe inm ate personally. Atthe very least,tllis inconsistency in the.defendants'exhaustion argum entherecreatesadisputeoffactthatprecludes summary judgmentasto the facialchallenge to the policy in Claim (2). Furthermore,the defendantsconcedethatShellhasexhaustedhisclaim concerningthedisapprovaloftheDecember 2016 issueofShutterbug. Accordingly,thecoul'twilladdressthese facetsofClaim (2)on the m erits. The courtfinds no m aterial dispute of fact on which Shell could dem onstrate proper exhaustion ofadm inistrative rem ediesregarding the disapprovalofseveralotherm agazine issues lmderthenttdity policy,howev'er. Asto each ofthese otherpublications,Shellfiled a Regular GrievancethatSmallingrejected on intake. On each occasion,Shelltook nofurtheraction. He failed to plzrsue additional, available rem edies under the grievance procedtlres- to appeal the 14 intake decision and/or to fle a revised Grievance challenging only the disapproval of the publication and pursuing thatclaim tilrough thehighestavailablelevelofappeal. Therefore,the courtwillgrantthe defendants'motion forslzmmaryjudgmentasto theportionsofClaim (2) concerning thedisapprovalofcertain issuesofVocue,Rolling Stone,and Rancetinder,based on Shell's failure to exhaust. Because the record reflects that Shellcould notnow complete the VDOC grievanceprocedtlresontheseclaims,thecourtwilldismissthem withprejudice. C . The N udity Policy Thedefendantsarguethatsllmmaryjudgmentshould beentered intheirfavoron Shell's First A m endm ent challenge to the nudity policy regarding incom ing publications because this courthasupheldtheVDOC nuditypolicy againstasimilarFirstAmendm entchallenge.Fauconier v.Clarke,257F.Supp.3d746,54(W .D.Va.2017),afrd,709F.App'x 174(4thCir.2018),cert. denied,No.18-7762,2019W L 1231914 (M ar.18,2019)(citing Lovelacev.Lee,472 F.3d 174, 199 (4th Cir.2006);'Ihlrnerv.Safley,482U.S.78 (1987)).Thecourtin Fauco' nierdetennined . thatthepèll icy wasreasonably related to legitimatepenologicalinterests, other avenuesrem ained available for inm ates' exercise ofthe right to view non-obscene m aterials,alternative m easures would adversely impact inm ates and staff,the policy was not an exaggerated response to the problem itaddressed,and the policy wasnotoverly broad. Id.at754-59. Shellcom plainsthat V D OC officials inconsistently apply the nudity policy. The courtcan find no respect in which these allegations give rise to a claim of constitutional proportions. In Fauconier, the court specifically held that occasional inconsistencies in the application of a policy,based on the discretion granted to the decisionmakers,do notrenderthatpolicy unconstitm ional. Id.at762. Forthestated reasons,thecourtwillgrantthedefendants'motion forsummaryjudg'mentasto Shell'sClaim (2)regardinghisfacialchallengetothenuditypolicy. 15 The coul'talso determinesthatthedefendantsare entitled to summaryjudgmentasto Shell'schallenge tothe disallowance oftheDecember2016 issue ofShutterbuc m agazine tmder the nudity policy. Thedisapprovalofthepublication cnm efrom the PRC and wasupheld by the chief of operations. See OP 803.2 at 5;6 Com pl. Ex.J, ECF N o. 1-1 at 171-73. Thus,the defendantsShellhasnnm ed had no personalresponsibility forthatdecision and cnnnotbe held liableforitunderj 1983. Trulockv.Freeh,275F.3d391,402(4thCir.2001)(notingthatliability inacivilrightscaseisçlpersonal,basedupon each defendant'sownconstimtionalviolations'). In any event, Shell's claim is foreclosed by the decision in Fauconier. The PRC disapprovedtheDecember2016 Shutterbuaissuebecauseitviolatedthenuditypolicyby depicting in som e way,human orcartoon,male orfemale genitals,thepubic area,the female breastwith lessthmla f'ully opaque covering ofthe areola,orthem ale orfem ale anuswith lessthan a f' ully opaque covering. ShellarguesthatifVDOC publicationscan contain the GreatSealofVirginia, which includes a bare fem ale breast with the areola tmcovered,then he s 'hould be allowed to possess his m agazine. In Fauconier, the court recognized that ççthe fact that a statute is constitutionalas m itten does notpreclude a courtfrom deciding whether the statute has been applied in a particularcase in a w ay asto violate vadous constitutionalprovisions.'' 257 F.Supp. 3d at761. The plaintiffin thatcase complained thatan Esquire m agazine containing acartoon depiction ofnudity wasallowed underthenuditypolicy,butPlayboy magazinesweredisapproved for nudity. Id. Considering the deference courts m ust grant to prison officials in prison . ' m anagem entdecisions,and çlin lightoftheregulation'srehabilitative and security pup osesy''the courtcondudedthatthisseem inginconsistencyinapplication,vestedintheprofessionaldisoretion of the PRC and the chief of operations,did not violate the plaintiffs constim tional right. Id. 6 ThecourttakesjudicialnoticeofthisVDOC policyregardingincomingpublications,availableonlineat he s://vadoc, virghia.gov/general-public/operating-procedures. l6 Shell's claim falls squarely into the snm e category. Accordingly, the court will grant the defendants'motionforsllmmaryjudgmentastoClaim (2)initsentirety. D.DueProcessClaim s ThedefendantsargueforsummaryjudgmentintheirfavoronClaim (1)becauseShellwas eithernotdeprived ofa protected liberty orproperty interestorsuffered no violation ofhisdue processrightsrelated to thechallenged disciplinary proceedingsand property confiscations. The court'agreesthatShellhasnotestablished any dueprocessviolations. Prisonersm ay notbedeprived oflife,liberty orproperty withoutdueprocessoflaw . See W olffv.M cDolmell,418U.S.539,556(1974).However,theDueProcessClauseappliesonly w hen governm ent action deprives an individualof a legitim ate liberty or property interest. See Bd.ofRegentsofState Colls.v.Roth,408 U.S.564 (1972). Penaltiesthatdo notimposean atypicaland significanthardship on a prisonerin relation to theordinary incidentsofprison life arenotconstitutionally protected interestsundertheDue ProcessClause.See Sandin v.Cormer, 515U.S.472,484(1995)(holdingthatdisciplinarysegregationdidnotpresentthetypeofatypical, significantdéprivationinwhichastatemightcréatealibertyinterest).Inparticular,apenaltythat im poses a suspension or loss of telephone privileges or electronic devices does not deprive a prisonerofan interestprotected by the Du'e Process Clause. See Cooperv.Dtmcan,2017 W L 2271501,at*3 (W .D,Va.M ay 23,2017);Obataiye-Allahv.Cl' ark,201'4W L t240509,at*6-7 (W .D.Va.Dec.18,2014). Furthennore,thereisnoconstitutionalorstatm oryrighttousealaw librm' y,see Lewisv.Casev,518U.S.343,351(1996),and atemporary inability io use a1aw library isnotatypicalin theprison setting. For Shell's disciplinary convictions in PSCC-2017-1031 and PSCC-2017-1032,Bandy penalized him w ith a tem porary loss ofprivileges- telephone and electronics usage oruse ofthe 1aw library.Becausethesepenaltiesdid notdepriveShellofafederally protected liberty interest, he had no constitm ionalrightto particularproceduralprotections before losing the privilege or dtlring the disciplinary proceedings. Thus,the courtwillgrantsummary judgment forthe defendantsasto Shell'sdueprocessclaim sconcerningthesetwo disciplinary charges. Stprison disciplinaryproceedingsarenotpartofacriminalprosdcution,andthefu11panoply ofrightsdue adefendantin such proceedingsdoesnotapply.'' W olff,418 U.S.at556. lfsuch a disciplinaryproceedingsubjectstheinmatetolossofaconstitutionallyprotectedinterest,suchas earned good conducttim e,orperhapsaportion ofproperty, theinmatemustreceive:(1)advancewrittennoticeofthedisciplinarycharges;(2) an opporttmity,when consistentwith institutionalsafety and correctionalgoals,to callwitnessesandpresentdocllmentary evidenceinhisdefense;and(3)awritten statem ent by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Superintendent-M ass.Corr.Inst..W alpolev.Hill,472 U.S.445,454 (1985)(citingW olff,418 U.S.at563-67). W olffGtdidnotrequireeitherjudicialreview oraspecifiedquantum ofevidencetosupport thefactfinder'sdeciàion.''Id.at454. çû-f' herequirementsofdueprocessareflexibleanddejend on abalancingoftheinterestsaffectedbytherelevantgovernm entaction.''1d. Gçl-hefundnmental faim essguaranteed by the Due ProcessClause doesnotrequire courts to setaside decisions of prison administrators (in disciplinary proceedings)thathave some basisin fact.'' 1d.at456. Determining awhetherthisstandard isjatisfied doisnotrequireexnmination ofthe entirerecord, independentassesslentofthecredibility ofwitnesses,ortheweighing ofevidence.''1d.at455. Shellcomplainsthat(a)none ofthe challenged disciplinary charges againsthim were served upon him by m idnight ofthe next wörking day following discovery of the offense as required by VDOC OP 861.1(IX)(A)(2);(b)he was notallowed Gdto know the nature ofthe evidenc: againsthim ...untiljustpriorto thehearing,''andhéwaspreéludedç&from obtaining evidencefrom outside''theprisonthatcouldestablishhisinnocence;and (c)Bandy,asaVDOC 18 employee,was not an unbiased or im partial hearings officer, such as a magistrate or other individualoutsidetheVDOC would be. Compl.32,ECF N o.1. Shellhas offered no statement from himselforany otherwitnessthatissworn ormadetmderpenaltyofperjury asrequiredto opposeamotionforsummaryjudgment.SeeOliver,2010W L 1417833,at*2. M oreover,thedefendants'evidenceindicatesthatShellreceivedtheprocedlzralprotections required underW olffin each ofthe disciplinary caseswhere Shellreceived a monetary penalty. Theirdocumentation showsthatShellreceivedamplenoticeofeach chargebeforethedisciplinary hearing onthatcharge.Hill,472 U.S.at454.Thedefendantsalso assertthatShellreceived tim ely notice ofthechargestmderVDOC policy aswell.In any event,aviolation ofVDOC policydoes notsupportaconstitutionalclaim actionabletmderj1983.SeeUnitedStatesv.Caceres,440U.S. 741,752-55(1978);Ricciov.Cntv.ofFairfax,907F.2d 1459,1469(4th Cir.1990)(holdingthat ifstate 1aw grantsmore proceduralrightsthan theConstitution requires,a state'sfailm e to abide bythat1aw isnotafederaldueprocessissue). Foreach disciplinary offense,theevidence showsthatShellreceived a copy ofthecharge, information about his due process rights, and forms to request witnesses and docllmentary evidence. The recordsindicate thatShellappeared,testified,and presented llisdefense. He also received m itten statem ents outlining the evidence Bandy relied upon and the reasons for the finding ofguilt. The defendants'evidence is thatBandy had som e facttzalbasisforeach ofthe conviction decisionson Shell'schargesforviolating histreatmentplan,and Shellhaspresented no sworn statem entorothersuftk ientevidence in opposition. Finally,the courtconcludesthat theVDOC practiceregardingdocllm entary evidenceand itspractice ofhaving aVDOC employee act as the disciplinary hearings officer are consistent with the constitm ional due process requirementsin W olff.Hill,472U.S.at454 (notingthatW olffdoesnotrequirejudicialreview in prison disciplinary proceedingsl;W olff,418 U.S.at 566 Cçprison ofticialsmusthave the necessary discretion to keep thehearingwithin reasonablelimits...aswellasto limitaccess... to compile otherdocumentary evidence.'). Based on the llnrefuted evidenceregarding events dtlring the disciplinary proceedings,the courtfinds no genuine dispute of material fact and concludesthatthedefendantsareentitled to entl'yofsummaryjudgmentin theirfavoronShell's Claim (1),allegingdueprocessviolationsrelatedtodisciplinaryproceedings. Thecotu'talsoconstruesShell'sClaim (1)ascontendingthatBoydwrongfullyconfscated personal propel-ty items from him without due process on October 21, 2016, based on her conclusion thatthey were inconsistentwith histreatm entp1an.7 M ostofthese item sazenow in the possession ofShell'sfriend outside the VDOC. Thus,Shellcannotclaim thathe has been deprived ofthem ;hem erely cnnnotpossessthem in hiscellatPocahontas. Shell also complains that 17 photographs taken from his cell in October 2016 have allegedly disappeared and thatothersBoyd rettlrned to him were damaged. Itiswellestablished ' . , : ' . . ' ' . . . thatanegligentorççtmauthorized intendonaldeprivation ofproperty by a stateemployeedoesnot constitutea violation ofthe procedlzralrequirem entsofthe3ueProcessClause ofthe Fourteenth Am endmentifam eaningfulpostdeprivation rem edy forthelossisavailable.'' Hudson v.Palmer, 468 U.S.517,533 (1984). Shellhad available remedies tmder Virginia state law to seek reim bursem entforthevalueofthepropel'ty itemsthatBoyd allegedly lostordamaged.Va.Code Ann.j8.01-195.3(ifvirginiaTol'tClailnsAct''orG'VTCA'').TheFourthCircuithasheldthatthe VTCA and Virginia to14 1aw provide adequatepost-deprivation rem ediesfortortscomm itted by 7 Som eofthese m aterials,aswellassom eitem sBoydlaterconfiscatedand disciplined Shellforpossessing, Shellcharacterizesaslegalm ail,confiscated in violation ofhisSixthAm endm entrightto com municatewithcotm sel and his FirstAm endm entrightto accessthe courts. He hasproven no such claim ,however. An inm ate has no protected rightunderthe Sixth Am endm entin a civilcase to com m unicate confidentially or othem ise w ith his attorney.SeeW olff,418U.S.at576($EAstotlzeSixthAmendment,itsreach isonlytoprotecttheattomey-client relationship9om intrusion inthecriminalsetting....'' ).Shellpresentsnoevidencethattheconfiscated itemshave any relationship to an active crim inalcase. An accessto courtsclaim requiresa showing ofparticularharm to the inmate'slitigationofaviablelegalclaim.Lewisv.Casev,518U.S.343(1996);Altizerv.Deeds,191F.3d540,548 (4thCir.1999)(findingpracticeofogeningandreadingallinmates'outgoinglegalmailtosearchitandcensorsectlrity threatening information did notvlolate inmates'constimtionalrights). Shelloffers no evidence thatBoyd's confscationshaveharm ed hisability to litigateaviablelegalclaim . 2() stateemployees. W adhamsv.Procunier,772 F.2d 75,78 (4th Cir.1985). Theavailability ofa tol4 action in state courtfully satisfiesthe requirem entofm eaningfulpost-deprivation process. Hudson,468 U .S.at536. Thus,the courtconcludesthatthe defendantsare entitled to sum mary judgmentasto Shell'sdue processclaimsregarding thedisallowance ofhisproperty itemsin octobel.2016andtàeallegedlossordamageofhisphotographs. E.FirstAmendm entFreeSpeech Claim Courtshaveheldthatin avarietyofcontexts,aspartofitsFirstAmendmentprotection of free speech,ççthe Constitution protects the rightto receive information and ideas.'' Stanlev v. Georcia,394 U.S.557,564 (1969). ttln the prison context,regulations which circumscribe constitutionally protected interests are pennitted so long as they are reasonably related to legitim ate penological interests.'' Couch v.Jabe,737 F.Supp.2c1561,565 (W .D.Va.2010) (internalquotationmarks,alteration,andcitationsomitted). In Sje11,sresponse to the defendants,motion,. he statestjjat;t(aqmaj. ortjarustoj-ghisj complaintisthatthematerialsconfiscatedby DefendantBoyd gin October2016and in thelater disciplinaryactlonsqdidnot,anddonotviolateanyVDOC policy,nordotheyviolatehisso-called ttreatm entp1an.''' R esp.O pp'n 1,ECF N o.33. H e asserts that Boyd's actions deprived him of hisFirstA mendm entl-ightGsto read and view printed material,written m aterial,and images.'' 1d. at29.W hilethisFirstAmendmentclaim isnotasclearly stated inthe'complaintasShellbelieves, thecourtwillconstlmehissubmissionsliberallyto includeitin thisaction. Shell has not stated facts, however, showing that defendant Clarke had any direct involvem entin the allegedly wrongf'ulcon 'fscation ofShell'sm aterialsand photographsorthathe received noticeoftheissue.Thus,Shellhasnotshom lthatClarkecom mitted orfailed to correct theallegedviolation ofShell'sFirstAm endmentright. Tnzlock,275 F.3d at402. 21 Liberally construed,Shell'ssubm issionsdo indicatethatBoyd,Bandy,W alz,and Yotmg werepersonally involved in the contiscationsorhad noticeofthem and an opporttmityto con'ect the alleged violation by ordering that he could possess the m aterials in prison after all. Accordingly,the courtconstnlesShell'ssubmissionsaspresenting claim sagainstBoyd,Bandy, W alz,andYotmg forconfiscatingpersonalproperty itemsalreadyin hispossession,inviolation ofhisFirstAm endm entrightto receiveand possessin prison information and ideas.Asreliefon thisclaim,Shellhassoughtonlydeclaratoryan. dinjunctiverelieftoregainaccesstothecov scated materials.Thecourtwill,therefore,directthesedefendantstorespondto Shell'sFirstAm endment claim asconstrued. 111. CON CLU SION For the stated reasons,the courtconcludes thatthe defendants are entitled to sldm mary judgmentastotheclaimsaddressedintheirmotionandhereinresolvedbasedontheclaims'lack ofm eritoron Shell'sfailtlreto exhaustadm inistrativeremediesbeforefiling thisaction.Because itispotclearthatShellisnow unabletoexhatlstandrefilehisClaim (4)regardingthefoodpackage policy,thecoul' twilldismissthatclaim withoutprejudice,butwilldismissClaims(1),(2),and(3) and al1claimsagainstClarkewith prejudice. Thisaction willgo forward,however,on Shell's claim alleging thattheconfiscationsofhispersonalproperty item sviolated hisFirstAmendm ent rightto freely receive and possess information and ideas. An appropriate orderwillbe entered herewith. The cotlrtwillmaila copy ofthismem orandum opinion and the accompanying orderto plaintiff. EN TER : This ..59 day ofseptem ber, 2019 SeniorUnited StatesD istrictJudge 22
]]>
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.
