Edwards v. Scarberry, No. 7:2018cv00373 - Document 25 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 8/12/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERKS OFFICE U ,S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE:VA FILED 'i ' . IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR TH E W ESTERN DISTR ICT O F VIR G INIA R OA N O K E DIW SIO N klcltu l-oEluucxsowAlm s, Plaintiff, P.SC AR BER RY , D efendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ALC 1,2 2219 JULIA . BY: , E CASE NO.7:18CV373 M EM ORANDUM OPINION By: Hon.GlenE.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge M ichaelDenickEdwards,aVirginiainm ateproceedingpro K ,filed thiscivilrightsaction . ptlrsuantto42U.S.C.j 1983,1allegingthatdefendantP.ScarberryviolatedllisFirstAmendment rightsby retaliating againsthim forfiling grievances. Scarbeny hasfiled a motion forsllmm ary judgmentarguingthatEdwardsfailedto exhaustavailableadministrativeremediesbeforefiling thisaction,inviolationof42U.S.C.j 1997e(a).Edwardshasresponded,makingthismatterripe fordisposition. Afterreview ofthe record,the courtconcludes thatthe defendant'sm otion for summaryjudgmentmustbegranted. 1. BACKGROUND. TheuncontrovertedrecordindicatesthatEdwards,atalltim espertinent,washousedatRed Onion StatePrison (:;RedOrtion''land ScarberrywastheDirectorofFoodServiceatRed Onion. Edwardsworked in thekitchen atRed Onion,underthe supervision ofScarberry. Edwardsw as firedfrom hisldtchenjobonNovember22,2017. Edwards v. Scarberry Doc. 25 1Thecourtomitsintelmalcitations,alterations,andquotationmarksthroughoutthisopinion,unlessothenvise noted.SeeUnitedStatesv.Marshall,872F. 3d213,217n.6(4thCir.2017). Dockets.Justia.com On Novem ber 18,2017,Edw ards filed an informal com plaint alleging that Gv tchen supervisors''werefalsifyingdoctlmentsrelated to hisjob description andpay.2 V.S.3,ECF No. On N ovem ber 22,2017,Scarberry wrote her response,stating her intent to fire Edw ards. EdwazdsallegesthatScarben'yGûshowed(lzimjtheinformalcomplaint...fand)told(him he)was fired.'' Com pl.4,ECF N o.1. On December5,2017,Edwards subm itted an inform alcomplaintregarding being fired from iliskitchenjob.Intheinformalcoinplaint,EdwardsallegedthatheûGwasretaliatedagainst by P.Scarberry intheform ofajobterminationforwriting anirlformalcomplainton 11-18-17.'' M em .Supp.Summ .J.,Encl.E,ECF No.17-1. Scarberry responded to theinform alcom plainton D ecem ber23,2017.3 Edw ardsexplains thathew aited untilD ecem ber5, 2017 to tile hisinform al complaintSGbecausenomailwasrunningduetotheThanksgivingholidayand(atjRedOnionState Prison (aninmatehas)toaska(sergeantporaboveforcomplaintformswhorarelygivethem out.'' EdwazdsDect.2,ECF No.23-1. Edwardsallegesthathe filed regulargrievanceson December27,2017,January 4,2018, and January 16,2018. According to Edwards,he did notreceive a receiptorresponse forthe Decem ber27,2017,and January 4,2018,grievances.EdwardssenttheJantlary 16,2018,regular grievance to the RegionalOffice,not the Red Onion grievance office. The Regional Office receivedthegrievanceonJanuary 19,2018,andretum ed ittoRed Onion,noting:(Gretttrn to.inmate 2PursuanttoVirginiaDepartmentofCorrections(<1VDOC'')policy,aninmatemusttirstdemonstrateagood faith effortto resolve a F ievance inform ally through the procedlzres available atthe institution. Ifsuch informal resolution effod fails,the inm atethen m usttilea ttRegularGrievance''within thl 'rty calendardaysfrom the dateof theincident.M esserA ff.,Encl.A,OP 866.1,Dltt.N o.17-1. 3EdwardsallegesthathedidnotreceiveScarberry'sresponsetothisinfonnalcomplaintuntilScarbeny tiled hermotionforsummaryjudgment.Attachedtothemotionforsummaryjudgment,Scarbenyprovidedacopyofthe informalgrievance,whichindicatesthataresponsewascompletedonDecember23,2017.Giventhecourt'sSndings herein,whetherEdwardsreceivedthewritten response9om Scarbeny onDecember23,2017 orwhenScarberryfiled hersummaryjudgmentmotion,isimmaterialtothecourt'sanalysis. 2 tofile@ rRedOnionjforintakereviem ''Mem.Supp.Summ.J.5,ECF No.17.TheRedOnion grievance oftice received the regulargrievance on Febnlary 12,2018 and denied intakebecause the thirtp day filing period had expired. Edwards appealed the intake decision and the Regional Ombudsm an upheld the decision,noting thattheincidentoccurred on November22,2017. Edwards filed additionalregulargrievances on February 2,2018,Febrtzary 4,2018,and February 9,2018,4sendingthem to theRegionalOffceinstead oftheRed Oniongrievanceoffice. Theseregulargrievanceswereallsummarily rejected forbeing time-barred orrepetitive,orfor Edw ards'failure to use the inform algrievance process. Edwardsthen filed thepresentaction. Edwards'sole claim isthatScarberry fred him in retaliation for llis inform alcom plaintabouther em ployees,in violation ofhis FirstA m endm ent rights. II. DISCUSSION A. StandardsofReview FederalRuleofCivilProcedtlre56(a)providesthatacourtshouldgrantsummaryjudgment <Gifthe movantshowsthatthere isno genuine dispute asto any m aterialfactand the m ovantis entitled tojudgmentasamatleroflaw.'' GçA. stomateriality,...Eolnly disputesoverfactsthat m ightaffectthe outcom eofthe suitunderthegovem ing 1aw willproperly preclude the entry of summaryjudgment.'' Anderson v.Liberty LobbysInc.,477 U.S.242,248 (1986). Thedispute overamaterialfactmustbe genuine,çEsuch thatareasonablejury could ret' urn averdictforthe nonmovingparty.''JA ;seealso JKC HoldinaCo.v.W ash.SportsVenttzres.Inc.,264 F.3d 459, 4TheFebruary 9,2018,grievanceallegedthatRedOnionHumanRightsAdvocateM esserrefused tolog in, review,oranswerthegrievancesthatEdwardsfiled. Edwardsalso arguesthatM esserthrew away grievances. The February 9,2018 pievancew asreturned to Red Onion on M arch 12,2018,and on M arch 15,2018,theRed Onion grievanceofficerejecteditatintake,becauseEdwardshadnotusedtheinformalproceduretoresolvehiscomplaint. Edwardsdidnotappealthisdecision. 3 465 (4th Cir.2001).Assuch,themovingpartyisentitledtosllmmaryjudgmentiftheevidence supporting a genuine issue ofm aterialfactGlis m erely colorable or is not significantly probative.'' A nderson,477 U .S.at249. The moving party bears the burden of proving that judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. Celotex Cop .v.Catrett 477U.S.317,322-23(1986).lfthemovingparty meets thisburden,then the nonm oving party mustsetforth specitk ,admissible factsto demonstrate a genuine issue offactfortrial. M atsushita Elec.Indus.Co.v.Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S.574, 587 (1986).In consideringamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmustview therecord asa whole and draw allreasonable inferences in the lightm ostfavorable to the nonmoving party. Celotex,477U.S.at322-24;Shaw v.Stroud,13F.3d 791,798 (4th Cir.1994). However,the nonmoving party may notrely on beliefs,conjecture,speculation,orconclusory allegationsto defeatamotionforsummaryjudgment.Baberv.Hosp.Cop .ofAm.,977F.2d 872,874-75(4th Cir.1992).Instead,thenonmovingpartymustproducettsignitkantlyprobative''evidencefrom which areasonablejtlry couldrettlrn averdictin hisfavor.AbcorCorp.v.AM Int'l.lnc.,916 F.2d924,930(4thCir.1990)(quotingAnderson,477U.S.at249-50). B . Exhaustion ThePrisonLitigationRefonn Actprovidesin42U.S.C.j 1997e(a)thatGilnloaction shall be broughtwith respectto pdson conditionsundersection 1983 ofthistitle,orany Federallaw , by aprisonercov ned in anyjail,prison,orothercorrectionalfacilityuntilsuch administrative remediesasareavailableareexhausted.''42U.S.C.j1997e(a).(&gl Elxhaustionismandatorytmder the PLRA and ...tm exhausted claim s cnnnotbe broughtin court.'' Jonesv.Bock,549 U .S.199, 211 (2007). To comply with j 1997e(a),an inmatemustfollow each step ofthe established grievance procedtlre that the facility provides to prisoners and m eet all deadlines w ithin that 4 procedure before fling his j 1983 action. See W oodford v.Ngo,548 U.S.81,90-94 (2006) (/nding inmate'stmtimely grievance was notEçproper exhaustion''ofavailable administrative remediestmderj1997e(a)). ' The courtis GGobligated to ensure thatany defects in adm inistrative exhaustion were not procured from theaction orinaction ofprison offcials.''Acuilar-Avellavedav.Terrell,478F.3d 1223,1225 (10th Cir.2007);seeKabav.Stepp,458F.3d678,684 (7th Cir.2006). An inmate needonly exhaustC&available''remedies.42U.S.C.j 1997e(a).An administrativeremedyisnot available ttifaprisoner,through no faultofhisown,wasprevented from availing himselfofit.'' M oorev.Bennette,517F.3d 717,725(4thCir.2008). VDOC Operating Procedure (&1OP'') j 866.1, Offender Grievance Procedure,is the mechanism used to resolve inmate complaints and requires that,before submittinj a formal grievance,an inm atem ustdem onstrate thathehasmadeagood faith effortto resolveagrievance informally tllrough the procedtlres available atthe instimtion to secure institm ionalservices or resolve conaplaints. The inmate m ay subm it an ilttbnnal complaint form to the appropriate department head,and prison staffmustrespond within fifteen calendar days. Ifthe informal resolution effortfails,theinm atemustinitiatearegulargrievanceby filling outand subm ittingthe standard t&RegularGrievance''form within thirty calendardaysfrom thedate oftheincident. A grievancemeetingthecriteriaforacceptance,such astim eliness,islogged in ontheday itisreceived. lfthe grievance doesnotm eetthe criteria foracceptance,prison oflk ials com plete the tGintake''section ofthe grievance and rettzrn the grievance to the inm ate. Ifthe inm ate desires a review ofthe intake decision,he mustsend the grievance form to the RegionalOmbudsm an. How ever,ifreview by the RegionalOm budsm an does notresultin acceptance ofthe grievance for intake, ptlrsuing that appeal alone does not constitute exhaustion. Rather, to satisfy the 5 exhaustion requirement,the grievance mustbe accepted into the grievanceprocessand appealed through the highesteligible levelofreview.M esserAE ,Encl.A,OP 866.1,Dkt.No.17-1. Here, the incident occurred on Novem ber 22, 2017, and Edwards filed his informal grievanceonDecember5,2017,satisfyinghisgoodfaithefforttoresolvethegrievanceinform ally. Taking the evidence in lightm ostfavorableto Edwards,he filed hisfirstregulargrievance with theRed Onion grievanceofficeon December27,2017,aftertheexpiration ofthethirty-dayperiod. Edwardsthen filed additionalregulargrievanceson January 4,2018 and January 16,2018,after theexpirationofthirty-daytimelimit.EdwardsappealedtheJanuary 16,2018intakerejectionto the RegionalOmbudsman,who upheld the intake decision that this grievance was untim ely. Edwards also Gled regular grievances on February 2,2018,February 4,2018,and February 9, 2018. Itisundisputed thateach ofEdwards'regulargrievanceswere filed more than thirty days after the incident. The Suprem e Courtm ade clear in W oodford,548 U.S.at 90-94,that the tmtim ely filing of a grievance is notGtproper exhaustion''of available administrative rem edies underj 1997e(a). None ofEdwards'grievanceswasaccepted into the grievance process as properly filed, and, therefore, the court concludes that Edwards did not exhaust available admii strativeremedies. Liberallyconstrued,Edwardsarguesthatthejrievanceprocesswasnotreadily available tohim becauseitwasdiftk ultto obtaina grievanceform atRed Onion.Thecourtisunpersuaded by tllisargllm ent. W hile atRed Orlion,Edwardswasableto flenllmerousinform alcomplaints and regular grievances and did not claim that he was restricted in any way f' rom filing the 6 gdevances.Therefore,thecourtconcludesthatEdwardshasnotdem onskatedthatadm iniskative rem ediesw ereunavailableto him .5 H1. CONCLUSION Forthesutedreasons,thecourtwillgrantthedefend= t'smotion forsnmmaryjudgment tmderj1997e(a)astoEdwards'retaliation claim againstScarben'y. Becausethe courtfmdsit ' , clear9om therecord thatEdwards no longerhas an available adm iniskative remedy regarfllng thisclaim,thecourtwilldismissthem withprejudice.Anappropriateorderwillissuethisday. Theclerk willsend copiesofthism em orandnm opinion and theaccom panying orderto the plaintiffandto cotmselofrecord forthedefendant. M ENTER :Tllis inW day ofAugust,2019. SeniorU nited StatesD istrictJudge 5Inhissnmmaryjqdgmentresponse,EdwardsallegesthattheRedOniongrievanceo/ cedidnotreturnthe December27,2017orJanuay 4,2018regularpievancesinordertointerferewithEdwards'abilitytoexhaust availableremediesorin violatlon ofVDOC policy.Eventakingthese allegaEonsastrue,thiscontention doegnot changethecourt'sexhaustion analysis,becausetheseallegedlyunreturned pievanceswerenottimely Gled in any event. M oreover,$'astate'sfailuretoabideby itsown1aw astoprocedm alprotectionsisnotafederaldueprocess issue-''Brown v-Anaelone.938F.Supp.340,344(W.D.Va.1990 (citingRicciov.CountvofFairfax.907F.2d 1459,1469(4thCir.1990)).tsl'17heConstitutioncreatesnoentitlementtopievanceproceduresoraccesstoanysuch procedurevoluntsdlyestablishedbyastate.''Adamsv.Rice,40F.3d72,75(4thCir.1994);seealsoBookerv.S.C. Dep'tofCom.855F.3d533,542(4thCir.2017)(fndingthatinmatehasnoRconstimtionalentitlementtoand/ordue processinterestin accessingarievanceprocedure.'').RedOnion'sallegedfailuretofollow VDOC policy doesnot giverisetoaconstimtionalviolation.
]]>
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.
