Nolan v. Clarke et al, No. 7:2018cv00408 - Document 28 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 10/04/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DISX COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED 2C1-2# 2215 VanlN TH E UN ITE D STATE S D ISTRICT COU RT UL FORTHE WESTERN DISTRICTOFW RGINIA /:I(7'DUDLG CLERX ROAN O U D IW SIO N DE E U GEN E D .N O LAN , Plaintiff CaseN o.7:18-CV -00408 H ARO LD CT,ARK E,rtP-k, D efendants By:H on.M ichaelF.U rbansld - c ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge M EM O M N D U M O PIN ION EugeneD .N olan,an inm atein thecustody oftheVirginiaD epar% entofCorrecéons, r%DOC'') who curzentlyisincarcerated atSussex11StatePdson rfsussex11:) complnins thatdefendantsH arold Clarke,RoseD uzbin,BarryM arano,K eith D awkins,M arkA m onette, ChristopherLovezn,M elvin D avis,M s.M assenburg,N utseM ays,CorrecdonalO fhcetButke, SergeantTisdale,Correcdonal O ffker Van D er Schagt,and Lieutenant Gibbs violated llis rightslmdertheConsdmdon,theAmedcansW ithDisabiliéesActC% DA'),andSecdon504 ofthe Rehabilitadon ActrfRA'').Proceeding gcq K,Nolan ftled thislawsuitseeldng relief agninstdefendantson August20,2018.ECF N os.1,10.D efendantsflled am odon to dismiss on Novembet26,2018,to which Nolan responded onJanuary 10,2019.ECF Nos.16,24. Thepardeshave 6llljbdefedtheissues.Forthereasonssetfol'th below,defendants'm odon Nolan v. Clarke et al to disnlissisG RAN TED and N olan'scbim sate D ISM ISSED . Doc. 28 1.B ackground A .Facts N olan,who hasbeen diagnosedwith conedystrophyin 170th eyes,islegazyblind,color blind and vezy light sensiéve.In M arch 2017,a doctortecom m ended thathe be allow ed to Dockets.Justia.com have television with a 24-inch or larger scteen,a low-vision digitalclock,specislimed om ber sunglasses,and a TflkubyXT,7-inch H D ''m agro er.In M ay 2018,them agniherand specialized sunglasses w ere dispensed to him .It also was zecom m ended that N olan be placed in the visuallyimpairedprogram attheDeetheldCorrecdonalCenterro eerheld'')sothathecould receive servicesfrom the Virgl 'm'a D epm m entfor the Blind and Vision Im paired.D eerfeld offets specialized devices and equipm ent to visually im paired inm ates and pe- its patdcipadon in ptogtam sand dat 'ly acdvidesdesigned fortheitzehabilitation. N olan hasbeen incatcerated in 'VD O C since2007 and hasbeen transferred in and out ofthe Deerfeld lxtnit.He wasatDeerheld from M atch 2011 to June 2011 when he was ttansfetredtothesegregadon unitatGreensvilleCorrecéonalCentetrfGteensville').Helatet wasreleased to the genezalpopuladon atG reensville and then transfetred to the Sussex 11 segtegadon 'Anitin O ctober 2011.In D ecem ber 2011 he was ttansfetted to the Sussex I segregadon unitand then to the generalpopulation. In Septem bet2012 N olan wastransferzed to W allensm dge StatePrison and placed ita apod fortheheatingimpaited.Inluly2014hewasgrantedamedicalttansfertoDeerheld.In O ctober 2014 N olan was ttansferred back to the G reensville segregadon unit following a disciplinary infzactbn.lilD ecem bet2014 the disciplinary infracéon was overtutned and he wasplacedin anADA podforthehentingimpaired atGreensville.Inluly2015,followingthe filing ofan adm inisttadve com plaint,N olan onceagain wastransfetted to D eerfield. In Septem bet 2015 N olan wasaccused of a disciplinary infraction,wbich he denied, and was transfetred Stst to G reensville's segregadon unit and then to the lkiver N orth CorrectbnalCenterin O ctober2015.The warden there asked N olan ifhewould be able to 2 detetm inethe presence ofattack dogs,and N olan told lnim he wotzld not.N olan w asplaced in the pod forprisonersin wheelchaits.In 2016 N olan was transferred ftrstto Red O nion StatePrison'ssegtegadon unitfollowing disdplinary charges,and laterttansferred back to the G reensville pod for henting im paited inm ates,and then to the G zeen Rock Correcdonal CentetrfGreenRock'),wherehewastheonlylegallyblindinmateattheunit.InMay2018, N olan wasttansferred to Sussex II,whetehetem nins. N olan allegesthatdespite therecom m endadon m ade by the doctor atthe optom etry chi c ba 2017 Ehat he be allowed to have a 24-inch television and a DV D player wit. h cordless/witeless headphones, llis request for such television and DVD player was disapproved by defendants,inclucling defendantAm onette,theVD O C chiefphysician,asnot m edicallyrequited.H ecbim sthatheneedstheD W 7playertow atch educadonalandteligious Programm ing. W hen he arrived atGzeen Rock,prison offkialstold him thatthey did notknow how : to accom m odatehim ,butsentam em o to staffaletfing them thatN olan isblind.N olan clnim s thatthem em o cteated a hosdleenvitonm entwhich m anifested when heneeded to tequestan accom m odadon.For exnm ple,D efendantTisdale asked N olan to step behind a yellow line w hile hew aswaiting for com m issary.W hen N olan explained thathe could notsee the line because hewasblind,Tisdale asked him why he did nothave a seeing eye dog,even though he know sthe pdson does notallow seeing eye dogs.On another occasion,defendantBurke askedN olan to step behind aredlineand when N olan saidhecould notseetheredline,Burke told him thatheshould stayin hiscellifhe could notseetheline. 3 ln anothetincident,despitea m em o having been sentto pdson staffzem incling them thatthey needed to notify N olan via intercom in his cellwhen lniscelldoozw as closing,he was not warned.D efendant Van D er Schagt closed the celldoot and it caught N olan's shoulderandjammedit. N olan also com plainsthatVD O C did notm akeawdtten food m enu avz able to him in a fontlarge enough forhim to read.W hen N olan asked for a m enu hew as able to read, defendantLovern,the utzitm anager and AD A coordinator atGreen Rock,told him that a larger-plintm enu was notrequited by the AD A,butprovided to him as a favoz.N olan was told to ask any staffm em ber aboutw hatwason the m enu and also told thatartangem ents had been m adeto ptovidehim witllareadablem enu.N olan assettsthatw hen heasked ofhcers whatwason the m enu they would say they did notknow.ItisunclearwhetherN olan was everprovided w1t11large-fontm enus. O n M atch 29,2018,D efendant M assenbtug placed N olan on a 90-day grievance suspension.ln A pdl2018 N olan filed a com plaintasserting thatGreen Rock offk ialswere subjece glnim to crueland unusualpunishmentand heasked tobettansferred to Deerfield. A m eeting was held on April23, 2018 with defendantD urbin,the AD A Supervisor for VD O C,and defendantM atano,the VD O C statewide AD A coordinator.D efendaniD avis, the G teen Rock watden,refused to transfer N olan,butoffered to place him in the honors ppd ottheveteranspod,neither ofwizich accom m odate blind prisoners.D efendantLovern suggested placing N olan in the Shared Alliance M anagem ent System wllich houses inm ates witllgdm ental/wheelchair/vulnezable concetns.''N olan responded thathewould like to be uansferred to an appropriate facility and suggested D eerheld,A ugusta CorrectionalCenter, 4 N ottow ay Cotrecdonal Center,or Lawrenceville Cotrecéonal Center.D avis,M arano,and DurbinrejectedhistequesttogotoAugustaandNottowaybecausetheyhavestairs. N olan'srequestfora ttansferwas denied and D utbin and D avissuggested N olan be given ajob asflooztech.Dtubitzalso advisedthatNolan couldnotbeplaced ongdevance testdcdon because ofhisAD A stam sand thetestricion wasrem oved. O n M ay 22,2018 N olan wasseen by an optom ettistwho recom m ended placem entat D eetheld.O ne week later,he wastransferred to Sussex II.N olan hasbroughta nllm ber of clnim s agninst the staff atSussex II,butthose clnim s were severed and transferted to the United StatesD istdctCouttfor the Eastern D istrictofVitginia on O ctober 15,2018.ECF N o.11. B.Causes ofA ction Based on these facm alallegaéons,N olan allegesthatthe following defendantsviolated llisdghtsunder the Eighth and Fotuteenth am endm entsto the Consdtazdon and also under theADA:(1)DefendantsClarke,Dutbin,M arano,and Dawldnshaveviolated laisdghtsby allowing N olan to be housed itza facilityw here laisneedsasa blind person ate notm etand where he is in danger and is exposed to offkials who insulthis(11/,11,5 (2) Defendant Am onette has violated N olan's rights by disapptoving his ttansfer to D eetfield, and by disapproving a24-inch television and acordless/wirelessDVD player;(3)DefendantLovern violated N olan'srightsby notprovicling reasonable accomm odationsand exposing N olan to ofhcialswhoinsulted hishuman (11g111:5 (4)DefendantDavisviolatedNolan'srightswhenhe accepted him atGreen Rock;(5)DefendantMassenbutg violated Nolan'srightswhen she placed him on grievancerestdcdon;(6)DefendantMaysviolated llisrightswhen shetefused 5 toputinarequestonhisbehalffotttansfertoDeerfield;(7)DefendantBurkeviolatedNolan's rightswhen hetoldNolan heneeded to stayin lliscellifhecould notseetheredlines;(8) D efendantTisdale violated N olan'sdghtswhen he asked him why he did nothave a seeing eyedog;(9)DefendantVan DerSchagtviolated Nolan'srightswhen she did notwarn him thatthecçlldoorwasclosingsoNolandidnotgetoutoftheway;and(10)DefendantGibbs violated N olan'srightswhen he failed to providea m enu in afontlargeenough forN olan to zead. Fozrelief,Nolanrequests$800,000in damages.In addidon,heseeksinjtmcéverelief in the form of an order from the courtthat he be transfezted to D eelf eld so that he can receive servicesfrom theVitginiaD epar% entforthe Blind and Vision Impe ed. C.M otion to D ism iss Defendantsmakethe following argumentsin theirmodon to dismiss:(1)Nolan has failedtonameapropetdefendantfottheADA andRA cbims;(2)I-lisADA clqim formoney dnm agesfailsto allege aconstittzéonalviolation,m eaning defendantsate enétled to soveteign immuity;(3)Because Nolan's ADA clnim formoney damagesisbatred by sovereign immurzity,tlliscouttlacks jurisdicdon to adjudicate the ADA clnim;(4)I-liscllims for injuncdvereliefatemootbecausehehasbeen transferred to adiffetentfacility;(5)Hehas failed to allege sufhcientfactsto m ake outa cbim thathewasdiscHm inated agninstbased on hisdisabilityasrequited by the11A9(6)He failsto allegeadequatepersonalitwolvementon thepartofsomenamed defendants;and C/)Iqisitjutiesare. d-qmipimisunderthePrison LitkadonReform Act. 1I.Analysis A.Rule12(b)(1) DefendantsmovetodismisspursuanttoFeCLR.CiV.P.12q$(1),allegingthatthiscourt lackssubjectmatterjtzrisdicdon.Theyarguethattheyateendtledtosovereign immunityand thatthiscouttiswithoutjurisdicdontoadjuclicateNolan'sclnimsbecausesovereignimmunity isjlxtisdicdonalinnature,citingF.D.I.C.v.Me er,510U.S.471,475(1994). W hen adefendantatguesthataclnim fOsto allegefactsuponwllich subjectmattet can bebased,allthe factsalleged itlthecom plaintareasslxmed to betrueand theplaindffis afforded the same procedutalprotecéon as he would receive under a Rule 12q$(6) consideradon.Adam sv.Bnin,697F.2d 1213,1219 (4th Cit.1982).W hen adefendantaieges thatthejtuisdicdonalallegadonsin acomplaintarenottrue,ataialcourtmaygobeyondthe allegadonsofthe com plaintand hold an evidentiat'yhearing to deterrnineifthere are factsto supportthejurisdictionalallegadons.ld. W hen thejtuisdicéonalfactsareintettwinedwit. hthefactscenttaltothemeritsofa dispute,couttsgenerallyasslzmejutisdicdon andproceedtoaddressthemedts.L(. t. 9Kernsv. Urlited States,585 F.3d 187,193 (4th Cit.2009).A ttialcourtshould disnaiss unde. tRule 12q$(1)onlywhenjlptisdiclionalallegaéonsateTffcleatly ...immaterial,madesolelyfotthe ptuposeofobtainingjutisdicéonorwheresuchaclnim iswhollyunsubstandalandfrivolous.''' Id.(quodngBellv.Hood,327U.S.678,682 (1946). In this case,defendants do not atgtze thatN olan's recitadon offacts is unttnAe and theteforetheallegationsin hiscom plnintareasslzm ed to be ttue.The cout'tSndsthatN olan's asseréon ofjudsdicdon isinextticablydedto hisallegadonsthathisrightshavebeen violated 7 undet the Consdtudon and statutes.Accordingly,the cotutwillnotdism issllis clnim stm det Rule129$(1)butwillproceedtoanalyzehisclnimsunderRtzle129$(6). B.Rule12(b)(6) To survive amodon to disnnissundetFederalRuleofCivilPtocedute 1299(6),a com plnintm ustcontsin sufhcientfactualallegadons,which,ifaccepted astrue,Tffstate aclnim toreliefthatisplausibleonitsface.'''Ashcroftv.1 bal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingBell Atl.Co .v.Twombl,550U.S.544,557(2007)).Undertheplausibilitystandard,acomplaint m ustcontain T'm ore than labelsand conclusions''ora Tffot-mulaic recitadon ofthe elem ents ofacauseofacéon.''Tw om bl ,550 U .S.at555.Thisplausibility standard zequitesaplaindff to dem onstzate m ore than <<a sheerpossibility thata defendanthasacted unlaw flnlly.''Lq-g b1, 556 U .S.at678. W hen tnlling on am odon to disnniss,thecourtacceptsTftllew ell-pled allegationsofthe com pbintasttaze''and Tfconstruegs!thefactsandreasonableinferencesderived therefrom in thelkhtmostfavorableto theplnindff.'?Ibarrav.UnitedStates,120F.3d472,474(4th Cir. 1997).W hilethecouttmustacceptasttazeallwell-pleaded factazalallegadons,thesameisnot trtzeforlegalconclusions.rT hreadbaterecitalsofthe elem entsofa cause ofaction,suppotted bym ezeconclusorystatem ents,do notsuffke.''Lq-bal,556U .S.at678.A colzttneed notaccept astrueffflegalconclusions,elem entsofa cause ofacéon,...bateassertionsdevoid offixtthet fact'ualenhancem ent,...unw arranted infetences,unteasonable conclusions,orargum ents.''' Ychardsonv.Sha iro,751F.App'x346,348 (4th Cit.2018)(quotingNemetChevrolet.Ltd. v.Conslzmeraffaizs.com,Inc.,591 F.3d 250,255 (4th Cit.2009))(internalquotadon marks omitted).Thus,a complaint mustpzesent suffkient nonconclusory facttzalallegadons to 8 supportateasonableinfetence thattheplnintiffisentitled to reliefand the defendantisliable fortheunlawfulactororlaissionalleged.SeeFzancisv.Giacomelli,588F.3d186,196-197(4th Cit.2009) (afsrming dismissalofclnim thatsimply stated a legalconclusion w1t.1ano facts . ' suppoMngtheallegation)andKin v.Rubenstein,825F.3d206,214 (4thCir.2016)tf%a. re legalconclusions Tare not enétled to the assllm pdon oftrtzth'and are insufhcierïtto state a cbim-') (quotingLqb-a-l,556U.S.at679). (1)Liabilityunder42U.S.C.j1983 Toprevailonacbim fozacivildghtsvioladonunder42U.S.C.j1983,aplnindffmust establish (1) that he hasbeen deprived of a right,pzivilege,or immunity secured by the ConsétuéonorlawsoftheUnitedStatesand (2)thattheconductaboutwbichhecomplains w as com m itted by a person acdng under color of state law .D owe v.TotalAction A ainst Povertyin RoanokeValley,145F.3d 653,658 (4th Cit.1998).Pbintiffsmay seek money dam ages against defendants for theit ofhcialactbnswhen they ate sued in theitindividual capacides,subjectto some excepdonsand imm'aniées.Haferv.Melo,502 U.S.21,30-31 (2001). Cbim s for m oney dam agesbroughtagainstdefendantsitztheir officialcapaciéesare notcognizablein j1983lawsuitsbecauseneitherastatenoritsoffkialsacdngin theirofhcial capacitiesarepersonsforpum osesofj1983.W XIv.M icllianDe 'tofStatePolice,491U.S. 58,71 (1989).Thus,a clnim broughtar instan officialital' lisothetoffcialcapacityisnot considered a suitagninstthe official,butratheta stlitagainstthe official'soffice.Because the Eleventh Am enclm entprohibitscouttsfrom entertnining an acéon againstthe state,Alabam a 9 v.Pu h,438U.S.781,782 (1978),italso prohibitscouttsfrom consideHng clnimsagninst defendantsit' lthei. roffkialcapaciées.Cromerv.Brown,88F.3d 1315,1332 (4th Cir.1996). However,aplaindffmayseekprospectiveitjuncdvereliefagainststatedefendantsin thei. rofhcialcapacides.W iIIv.Micllian De t.ofStatePolice,491U.S.58,71(1989)9Graham v.Kentucky,473U.S.159,167n.14(1985).TTo ensuteenforcementoffedetal1aw ...the Eleventh Amendmentpe= its suitsforprospecdve injuncdve relief against state ofhcials actingin violadon offederallam '?Frew exrel.Frew v.Hawkins,540U.S.431,437 (2004). N olan does notspecify whether he isbringm ' g his cloim sagainstdefendantsitltheir inclividual or offcial capacides.To the extent he intended to sue defendants for m oney dnm agesin theirofficialcapacides,the cbim sagainstdefendantsate D ISM ISSE D . (a)Eighth Amendm ent The Eighth Am endm entprotects convicted inm ates fzom cruel and unusuz living cpndidons.Rhodesv.Cha man,452U.S.337,345-346 (1991).TheConsdtazdon doesnot mandate comfouable pdsons,but neither does it allow inhlamane ones.JA 9 Hellin v. ' McKinne,509 U.S.25,31 (1993).Prison offkialsmustprovide hlpmane condidonsof confnem ent,inclucling adequatefood,clothing,shelter,and m edicalcate,and also m usttake reasonable m easutes to ensute the safety ofinm ates.Fntvnerv.Brennan,511 U .S.825,832 (1994)(citingHudsonv.Palmer,468U.S.517,526-527(1984)).ff'f' omakeoutaptimafacie casethatpdson concv onsviolatetheEighth Amendment,aplaintiffmustshow 130th (1)a seriousdeprivaéon ofabasichllmanneed;and (2)deliberateinclifferencetopzison condidons on the partofprison ofhc-ials.''Stdcklerv.W aters,989 F.2d 1375,1379 (4tlzCir.1993) (internalquotaéonsand citadonsomitted).ffglln otdertowithstand sllmmaryjudgmenton an 10 Eighth AmendmentchaEengeto prison condidonsg,qaplaindffmustptoduceevidenceofa seriousorsignihcantphysicaloremotionalinjuryresultingfrom thechallengedcondidons.'' Id.at1381.Theallegeddeprivadonmustbeobjecdvelyffsufficientlyseriousy''W ilsonv.Seiter, 501U.S.294,298 (1991),and mustresultin thedenialofTftlaeminimalcivo ed meastue of life's necessides.''Rhodes v.Cha man,452 U.S.337,347 (1981).To show deliberate indifference,the plaindffm ustshow thatthe prison ofhcialhad a (Tsufficiently culpable state ofm ind.''W ilson,501U .S.at297,302-303. ln this case,none ofthe acdons thatN olan com plains aboutrise to the levelof an Eighth Am endm ent violadon.The rem arks by Butke and Tisdale,while insensidve and unprofessional,were notTdsuffkiently serious''and did notresultitathe denialofthem inim al civilimed m eastlre oflife'snecessities.SeeAdkinsv.Cabell,N o.3:06-0579,2010 W L 3521594, *2(S.D.W .V.2010)rflAlllegadonsofverbalabuse,verbalharassmentorabuseofaninmate bypdson guatds,withoutmore,isinsufhcientto stateaconsdmdonaldeprivadon.'l;Francis v.Hu hes,No.3:05-418-JFA-JRM,2006W L 2716458O .S.C.2006)(finclingthatinsultsto inmate'sreligiousbeliefsdo notriseto thelevelofaconstittztionalvioladon);and Keenan v. Hall,83F.3d1983,1092(9th Cir.1996)(findingverbalabuseofinmatesbygtzards,without more,failsto suteacbim tmderj1983). N olan alsq fails to state a clnim for an Eighth Am endm entviolaéon based on his allegadon thathewasnotprovided am enu with a large font.Such a denialdoesnotam ount to a seriousdepdvadon ofabasic hum an need. N or does defendantVan D er Schagt's failute to warn N olan thatllis celldoorw as closing rise to the levelofa consdttztionalvioladon,becauseN olan allegesno factsto show 11 thatthe closing ofthe doozw asaT<sufûciently sedous''deprivadon ofabasichllm an need,or thatV an D et Schagtacted witlfully.Atm ost,N olan has alleged thatVan D er Schagtacted negligentlyin shutfing thedoozon llisshotzlder,wllich doesnotstate aclnim undertheEighth Amenclment.Gra sonv.Peed,195F.3d 692,695 (4th Cit.1999). N olan sim ilarly has failed to state a clnim that his Eighth Am enlm ent dghts were violated by the 90-day gdevance ban because inm ates have no consdm donaldghtto ftle a gdevance or accessany such procedurevoluntarily established by the state.Bookerv.South CatolinaDe srfmentofCorzecéons,855F.3d533,541(4thCir.2017)(citingAdamsv.lkice, 40 F.3d 72,75 (4th Cir.1994)).Moreover,the l evance ban wasrescitaded and Nolan descdbesno hnt'm thatcam e to him whiletheban w asin place. N plan also allegesthatallthe decisionsm adewith regard to llisbeing placed anpvhete but D eerheld violated his dghts undet the Eighth Am endm ent.H ow evet,N olan has not alleged thatthe placem entshaveresulted itlseriousdepdvadon ofabasichlpm an need.SeeLq reLon Term A clm inisttadveSe re aéon ofInm atesD esi ated asFivePercenters,174 F.3d 464,471 (4th Cit.1999)(gtanting s'pmmaryjudgmenton cbim thatlong term segregated conhnem entviolates Eighth Am endm entbecause inm atesdid notallege faillzte to provide them w1t.11adequatefood,clothing,sheltet,orm edicalcare,orto ptotectthem ftom hnt'm,or otherwise show an extteme deprivadon).Accorclingly,he has failed to state an Eighth Am endm entcloim based on llisfactualallegations. (b)Fourteenth Amendm ent N olan assertsbzoadly thatallthe actsby the defendantsviolated hisrightstm der the Foutteenth Am endm ent. For the m ost part, he does not specify whether he is alleging 12 violadons of procedural due ptocess or equalprotection, and does not describe how the acdons Wolated either rkht. I-lis asseréons are itzsuffcient to state a clnim because ffgtlhteadbare tecitals ofthe elem ents ofa cause ofacéon,supported by mere conclusory statem ents,do notsuffice.''Jqb.il. ,556U .S.at678. H ow evez,N olan did m ake one specihc allegadon when he assezted thatthe denialof the D' VD playetwith cordless/witeless headphonesviolated llis tightto equalprotecdon because othervision im paited inm ateswere approved forand possess asim ilarD VD player. D efendantsatgue that N olan cannotm ake outan equalprotecdon claim because he stated thathe wasthe only vision im paired prisoneratGreen Rock,m earting thathe could notbe sim ilarly situated to any other prisoner there.N olan tesponded thathe wasnotreferdng to other pdsonersatGreen Rock,butto pzisoners atGreensvitle who arevision im paired and have been provided a sim ilarD'VD playez. The equalprotecéon clause ofthe Fouzteenth Am endm entrequitesthatpersonswho are similatly sim ated be tteated alikeby thegovernm ent.Ci ofClebuznev.ClebutneLivin Center,Inc.,473U.S.432,439-41(1985).To estabiish aviolation oftheEqualProtecion Clause,aplaindffm ustshow thathehasbeen treated differently from otherswho aresim ilarly sittzated and thatthe unequalprotecdon wasintendonalorpurposeful.lfing,825F.3d at220. If a plaindff m akes such a showing,the court then dete= ines whether the dispat'ity in tteatmentcan bejustihed undetthetequisitelevelofscrudny.Morrison v.Garraghty,239 1 F.3d 6488654 (4th Cit.2001). Evenwiththeclarihcadon byNolanthathewasreferringtoinmatesatGreensville,he hasnotm adeoutaclnim forvioladon ofllistightto equalprotecdon because hedid notplead factsto show thattheothetpdsonetsatesim ilarly sim ated to him .A review ofthedocllm ents N olan attached to hiscom plaintinclicatesthattherecom m endadon forthe D VD playerwith witelesshealphoneswassubjectto approvalbythehealth careprovideratGreensville,who did notapprove it.ECF N o.1-1 at38-39.A lthough N olan clnim sthatothetvision-im paited inm atesatG reensvillewereallowed topurchaseaD VD player,hedoesnotidendfyanyvisionim paired inm ateswho obtained a sim ilar DVD playet,orindicate how m any otherinm ates obtained theitem ,orw hyitwastecom m ended and approved forthem .In short,hehasfailed to show that he w as sim ilady situated to other inm ates and sim ply m akes a conclusory allegadon thathisrightto equalprotecdon hasbeen violated. BecauseN olan hasfailed to state a cbim forvioladon ofbisconsdtazéonaldghts,his cloim sbased on theEighth and Fourteenth Am endm entsareD ISM ISSED . C.AD A Claim and R A Claim s Title 11 of the AD A provides thatno quao ed inclividualwith a disability shall,by reason ofsuch disability,be excluded from patticipaéon in orbe denied the benefhs ofthe services,programs,oracdvidesofapublicendty,orbesubjected to discHminadon byany suchendty.42U.S.C.j 12132.A ffqualihedindividualwithadisabilitf?isTfanindividualwith a disability who,,with orwithoutreasonablem odifkadonsto rales,policies,orpractices...or theprovision ofauxiliary aidsand serdces,m eetsthe essentialeligibility requitem entsforthe zeceiptofservices orthe pnG cipation in ptogram soracdvidesprovided by a public endtp'' 42U.S.C.j12131(2).Tomakeoutaclnim undettheADA,aplaintiffmustallege(1)thathe hasadisability;(2)heisotherwisequaliûedtoreceivethebenefitsofapublicservice,program, oracdvity;and (3)hewasexcludedfrom pardcipadon in ordenied beneûtsofsuch aservice, program ,or acdvity,or otherwise was disctim inated against,on the basis of his disability. Constantinev.RectorsandVisitordofGeor eMason Urziversi ,411F.3d 474,498 (4th Cir. 2005).Title11appliestoinm atesin stateprisons.Penns lvaniaD e t.ofCorrecdonsv.Yeske , 524U.S.206,208(1998). TheItA w asenacted seventeen yearsbeforetheAD A andTitle11oftheADA isclosely related to Secdon 504 oftheRA.To the extentpossible,courtsconstrue sim ilarprovisionsin tlaetwostatutesconsistentlywith oneanothet.larboev.M atylandDept.ofPublicSafetyand CorrecdonalServices,No.ELH-12-572,2013W L 1010357at*30 .Md.2013)(citingFreilich v.U erChesa eakeHealth Inc.,313F.3d205,214 (4th Cir.2002);Seremethv.Boardof Colm Com'rsFrederick Coun ,673 F.3d 333,336n.1 (4th Cir.2012).Thestatutesshare the sam e dehtlidons of disability and Title 11 of the ADA provides that the fTrem edies, procedutes, and rights': provided undez Section 505 of the RA fTshall be the rem edies, procedures,and rights''thatTitle11 ofthe AD A providesto petsonsalleging discHminadon basedondisabilitplarboe,2013W L 1010357at*3(citing42U.S.C.j12133). N onetheless,two differencesexistbetween the statutes.UnderTitle11oftheAD A,a plaindffmustshow discHminadon ffbyreasonof''disability.42U.S.C.j12132.UndettheRA, aplninéffmustshow discHmination Tfsolelybyreason of''disabilitp 29U.S.C j794(a).Thus, the RA requites a lzighet standatd of causadon. Second,the RA applies only to federal agencies,progzsm s,oracdvidesreceiving federalhnancialassistance.29 U.S.C.j 794(a).In ozde:to show aviolation oftheItA,aplainéffm ustshow thatthattheprogram oracdvity at issueteceivesfedetalfinancialassistance.Jarboe,2013W L 1010357 at*3. (1)ProperDefendant D efendantspointout,correctly,thatthereisno individualliability tm derthe AD A ot theRA.lonesv.Stetnheimer,387F.App'x366,368(4thCir.2010)(percutinm).Theptoper defendantin a casealleging A DA violadonsin a correcdonalfacilityisthe agency ovetseeing thefaciiity,orintlaiscase,'VDOC.Latsonv.Clarke,249F.supp.3d838,855-856(W .D.Va. 2017).SeealsoYoun v.Bnrrhow,No.11. W T-07-662,2007W L 5253983at*2 @ .Md.2007) (dismissing individualdefendants in ADA and ItA lawsuitafter fmding individualliability ptecluded under 130th stamtes). Accorclingly, all N olan's clnims against the individual defendantsbroughtundertheAD A otltA areD ISM ISSE D . (2)Eleventh Amendm entImmunity and ClaimsForM oney Damages Genetally,the Eleventh Am endm entprovidesim m unity to state agencies from suits form oney dnm agesby cidzensofanother state,oritsown state.ffT'he ultim ateguarantee of theEleventh Am enclm entisthatnonconsenting Statesm ay notbe sued by pzivateindividuals in federalcoutt.'?Bd.OfTmsteesofUniv.ofAla.v.Garret't,531U.S.356,363 (2001). H ow ever;ffcongressm ay abrogate the States'Eleventh Am endm entim m unitywhen it130th unequivocallyitztendstodosoand ractlsjpursuanttoavalidgêantofconsétudonalauthoritp''' Id.(quolingIiimelv.FloridaBd.ofRe ents,528U.S.62,73(2000)). In United Statesv.Geor 'a,546 U.S.151 (2006),the Supreme Courtconsidered whethetTitle 11 ofthe AD A allow ed a suit for m oney dam ages againsta state pdson.The Courtftrstnoted thatin enacting theAD A,Congresstm equivocallyintended to abtogatestate sovereign immlmity.Ldx at 154.The Coutt then looked atwhethet Congress had acted 16 pursuanttoavalidgrantofconstitudonalauthorityundetj5oftheFourteenthAmendment.l TheCotutnoted thatfTgwlllilem embetsofthisCout'thavedisagreed regardingthescopeof Congress'sCprophylacdc'enforcementpowersunderj5 oftheFourteenth Amendment ... no one doubtsthat j 5 grantsCongress the power to fenforce ...the provisions'ofthe Am endm ent by creating pdvate rem eclies against the States for actualviolations of those provisions.'?Id.at158 (emphasisin origm 'a1)(internalcitaéonsonaitted).TheCollrfthen concluded:TfThus,insofarasTitle 11createsa private causeofacdon for dam agesagninstthe Statesforconductthatact'uall violatesthe Foutteenth Am endm ent,Title 11validly abrogates state sovereign immunity.''Id.at159 (emphasisin origm 'a1).The Cotutdid notaddressthe issue of whether Congress's ptupotted abtogation of sovereign im m unity for misconduct which violated Title 11' oftheAD A butdid notviolate the Fourteenth Am endm entw asvalid. Id = In this case,the courtindsthatN olan has failed to state a cbim forviolation oflzis rightsundettheFoutteenth A m endm ent.Accordingly,even ifN olan had nam ed VD O C asa defendant,he hasfailed to state acbim fordam agesagainstthe agency.I-tisclnim sform oney dam agesundertheAD A and RA areD ISM ISSED . (3)PtospectiveInjunctiveRelief Eleventh Amenclmentimmunitydoesnotapplytorequestsforprospectiveinjuncdve relief.' Fauconierv.Clatke,652F.App'x 217,220 (4th Cir.2016)(citingVedzon Md.,lnc.v. Pub.Serv.Comm'n,535U.S.635,645(2002)).Nolan asksforinjlmcdvereliefin thefot.m of 1R' l'heCongressshallhavepowerto enforce,byappropriatelegislation,theprovisionsofthisarticle.''U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.XIV,j5. atransfer to D eerfield,so thathe can receive services from the VirginiaD epar% entfor the Blindandlmpaired.DefendantscontendthatNolandoesnothavestandingtoseekinjuncéve reliefbecause he failsto allege an actualorim m inentinvasion ofa legally ptotected interest and hefailsto show any risk ofsubstandaland itrepatableharm atthehandsofdefendants. ln assessing a question of standing to sue,a courtdoes not address the m erits ofa plainéff's cbim.Nanniv.Aberdeen M azke lace Inc.,878 F.3d 447,454 (4th Cir.2017). Rather,theonlynim isto assessfffwhethergtheqplninéffhasasufficientlypetsonalstakein the lawsuittojuséfytheinvocaéon offederalcourtjutisdiction.n'Id.(quotingW lliteTailPark, Inc.v.Sttoube,412F.3d451,460 (4th Cir.2005)).Genetally,in otderto show standing,a plaindffmust show (1) an injury it' lfact thatis concrete and patticulatized;(2) a causal connectionbetweentheinjutyandtheconductcomplninedof,i.e.,theinjutymustbettaceable to tlae challenged action ofthe defendant;and (3) itmustbe likely rather than metely speculaévçthattheinjurywillbetedressed by afavorabledecision.Lu'an v.Defendersof W ildlife,504U.S.555,560-561(1992).ln thecontextoftheADA,aplaintiffmaydemonsttate an injury by showing an actazalinvasion ofa legally protected interestthataffectshim in a personalandindividualway.Nanni,878F.3dat454-455(citingLu'an,504U.S.at560andn. 1).In ordertoshow standingtoseekitjunctiverelief,apattymustshow alikelihoodthathe willsufferfutlare injury.1d.at455 (citing Ci ofLosAn elesv.L ons,461 U.S.95,105 (1983)). Nolan cannotshow thathewillsufferfutureinjuryatGreenRockbecausehenolonger ishoused there.Anyclaim henlighthavehad foran injuncéon seeldng transfertoDeerfield based on llisclsim thatilisvision im pnimnnentw asnotbeing accom m odated atG zeen Rock 18 becnm e m ootwhen hew as ttansfetred to Sussex II.See Incum aa v.O zmint,507 F.3d 281, 286-287(4thCit.2007)rftransferofaninmatefrom aunitorlocadonwhereheisnolonger subjectto thechallenged policy,pracéce,orconditbn mootshisclnimsforinjuncdveand declatatoryreliep).BecauseNolanisnolongerishousedatGreenRock,atransfetwouldnot addressany hnt'm hem ay have suffeted there. Also,N olan isnow housedin theEastekn D istdctofVitginiaand hasalawslzitpencling there.A review ofthedocketinthatcase,Nolanv.Clarke,No.2:18-CV-552(E.D.Va),shows thatNolan hasrequested the sameitjuncdveteliefin thatcaseashedid in theinstantcase and llis cbim s cutzently ate under consideradon on the defendants'm otbn for sllm m ary judgment.SeeECF Nos.14,15,17,42,43,49inthatcase.Ilisclnim forinjuncdvereliefin the form ofatransferto D eerfeld willbeaddtessed in thatcoutt Accordingly,N olan'sclnim fozitjuncdvereliefundertheADA andILA isDISM ISSED. 111.Conclusion A sdiscussed above,N olan hasfailed to state acbim forteliefunderthe Constitution, theAD A,orthe RA.Therefore,defendants'm odon to dism iss,ECF N o.16,isGRAN TE D and N olan'scom plaintisD ISM ISSE D in itsentitety. The Clerk isditected to send copiesofthism em orand'xm opinion and accom panying otder to D obson and to counseloftecozd fordefendants. 19 An appropriate orderwillbeentered. Itisso O RD E RE D . ENTksso: tojoyjy, ' # . . , , M ichael . rba s - , ,. 1,. -,.,. qks..,. - . ,.+. .:.c-2%W' ..110. Chie nited StatesDistrictJudge 20
]]>
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.
