Edwards v. DeBord, No. 7:2018cv00423 - Document 22 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 8/12/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cl-ERlfs OFFICE U.S,DIST.k;OtJR'I ' AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W E STER N D ISTR IC T O F W R G IN IA R O A N O K E D IW SIO N M ICH AEL D ER RICK ED W A RD S, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, A .DEB O RD , D efendant. ALC 12 2218 JUL BY: . CASE NO.7:18CV00423 M EM OM NDUM OPINION By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnitedStatesDistrictJudge M ichaelDenick Edwards,aVirginiainm ateproceedingproK ,filedthiscivilrightsaction pttrsuantto 42U.S.C.j1983,1allegingthatdefendantA.DeBordviolated hisFirstAmendment rights by retaliating against him for filing grievances. DeBord filed a motion for summ ary judgment,and Edwardshasresponded,makingthismatterripefordisposition. Afterreview of therecord,thecourtconcludesthatthedefendant'smotionforsllmmaryjudgmentmustbedenied. 1. BACKGROUND. The record indicates that Edwards,at al1tim es pertinent,was confined atRiverNorth CorrectionalCenter(ûûltiverNorth'')andDeBordwastheAssistantFoodSerdceDirectoratRiver North.Edwardsworked inthekitchen atRiverN orth,tmderthesupelwisionofDeBord.Edwards wasfiredfrom hisjobonJuly 12,2018. According to Edwards, on July 12,2018,he submitted three emergency grievances complaining thathehad been forced to wearajumpsuitdueto apriorincident. Afterthethkd em ergency grievance, Edw ards went to the supervisor's office to talk w ith D eBord. DeBord Edwards v. DeBord Doc. 22 allegedlytoldEdwardsthatGlif(heqhadtimetofilegrievances,(helmustnotbeworking.''Resp. D .M ot.Sum m .J.2,ECF N o.19-1. Follow ing this conversation,a correctionalofficer in the 1Thecourtom itsinternalcitations,alterations,andquotationm arksthroughoutthisopinion,unlessotherwise noted.SeeUnitedstatesv.Marshall,872F.3d213,217n.6(4thCir.2017). Dockets.Justia.com ,CLERK kitchentold Edwardsthathewouldnotbereturningto thekitchen,and anothercoaectionalofscer told him thathe Gtwas going to be fired overajumpsuit.'' 1d. Edwardsthen wrote a fourth enlergency grievance. The tmit manager told Edwards that he ûididn'thave to worry about working in thekitchen anymoreoverthe grievancesand shredded the (fottrthjgrievance.'' J.lJ. Laterthatday,thetmitmanagerandinstitutionalombudsmantoldEdwardsthathehadlosthisjob in thekitchen. D eBord'sevidencerecountsa differentversion ofevents. W hen Edw ards arrived forw ork onJuly 11,2018t'tochangeintohiskitchen clothes,hewaswearing aprisonjllmpsuit.Onthis day,Edwardshad an attitudeaboutanissuethathad occurred in hishousing unit.Dueto hispoor attittzde and behavior,he wàsremoved from thekitchen at3 p.m .to return to hishousing unit.'' DeBordAff.!6,ECFNo.14-1.OnJuly 12,2018,whenEdwardsreturnedtowork,heGtcontinued to dem onstrate apoor attitude and behaviorthatday and wasrem oved from thekitchen at8:30 a.m .to return to hishousing unit.'' Id. DeBord anived to work at8:00 a.m .on July 12,2018, thirty m inutesbefore Edwardswasrem oved from thelcitchen.Asof8:30 a.m .,DeBord wasnot awarethatEdwardshad filed orwasm itinganyemergency grievances.DeBord also Gûdidnottell Edwardsthatifhehastimetofilegrievancesthanhemustnothavebeen worldng.''L;sat!7. DeBorddidnothavetheauthoritytofireEdwardsfrom hislcitchenjob.OnJuly 12,2018, she completed an OffenderW ork Program Job Suspension and Term ination form ,whereby she recommended thatEdwardsbe terminated from hiskitchenjob due to poorjob perfonuance. DeBord subm itted the form to L.M organ-Bowm an,Senior Counselor at River North,who conducted an administrativereview,and approved Edward'stermination from hiskitchenjob. Morgan-Bowmanttbased (herqtermination approvalonM s.DeBord'sstatementthattermination requestwasduetoEdwards'poorjobperformance.'' M organ-BowmanAE !7,ECFNo.14-2. 2 Edwardsfiled an inform alcom plainton July 12,2018,complaining thathewastired in retaliation forfling grievances. DeBord responded,stating thatEdw ardswasreleased from the kitchen forpoorjob performance- GtduetoM r.Edwardson Thtlrs7/12/18wanting hisID and walking outand then his attitude carrying over to Friday 7/13/18.5'2 See V .S. 2,ECF N o.2. Edwardsstatesthathe neverasked forhis ID nordid hehave an attitude aboutwork;he claim s thathew orkedtb oughouttheday,tçeven whileon break.''EdwardsAff.1,ECF No.19-2. OnJuly 18,2018,Edwm'dsfiledaregulargrievance.Theresponding offcerinform edhim thathehad to attach histerm ination paperwork beforethegrievance would be accepted. On July 20,2018,Edwardssubmitted a second regulargrievance. On July 25,2018,afterinvestigation, thewardenrespondedthatEdwardswasûtterminatedfrom the'kitchendueto(hislbehaviorwhich ledtopoorjobperfonnance.''SeeV.S.9.Edwardsappealed.OnAugust13,2018,theregional om budsm an upheld the decision. Edwardsthen filed the presentaction. Edwards'sole claim isthatDeBord fired him in retaliation forhis filing ofem ergency grievances,in violation ofhisFirstA m endm entrights.3 1I.D ISCUSSION A . Standards ofReview FederalRuleofCivilProcedtlre56(a)providesthatacourtshouldgrantsummaryjudgment tlifthe m ovantshowsthatthere isno genuine dispute asto any materialfactand the movantis entitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.'' ççAsto materiality,...(olnly disputesoverfactsthat 2 DeBord acknowledges that she made a mistake regarding the dates in her response to the informal complaint.DeBordstatesthatCCM r.EdwardswantedhisID and walkedouton W ednesday,7/11/2018,notThtlrsday, 7/12/2018.HisattitudecarriedovertoThursday,7/12/2018,notFriday,7/13/2018.'1DeBordAff.!(11. 3 BecauseEdwardsisnow continedatWallensItidgeStatePrison,hecannotobtaintheinjunctivereliefhe seeks gettinghisjobback. SeeRendelman v.Rouse,569 F.3d 182,186(4th Cir.2009)(;<(A)sageneralrule,a prisoner'stransferorreleasefrom aparticularprisonmootshisclaimsforinjunctive...reliefwithrespecttohis incarcerationthere.'').Thecourtwilldismisshisclaim forinjunctivereliefasmoot. 3 m ightaffectthe outcom e ofthe suitunderthe govem ing 1aw w illproperly preclude the entry of summaryjudgment.'' Anderson v.Libertv Lobby.lnc.,477U.S.242,248(1986). Thedispute overamaterialfactmustbegenuine,Gçsuch thatareasonablejttry couldrettlrn averdictforthe nonmovingparty.''J#z. ;seealsoJKC HoldingCo.v.W ash.SportsVentttres.Inc.,264 F.3d459, 465(4th Cir.2001).Assuch,themovingpartyisentitledtosummaryjudgmentiftheevidence supporting a genuine issue ofm aterialfact&lism erely colorable orisnotsignificantly probative.'' Anderson,477 U.S.at249. The moving party bears the burden of proving thatjudgment on the pleadings is appropriate. Celotex Corp.v.Catrett 477U.S.317,322-23(1986).Ifthemovingparty meets this blzrden,then the nonm oving party mustsetforth specifc,adm issible factsto dem onstrate a genuine issueoffactfortrial. M atsushita Elec.Indus.Co.v.Zenith Radio Cop .,475 U.S.574, 587 (1986).In consideringamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecom'tmustview therecordasa whole and draw al1reasonable inferences in the lightmostfavorable to the nonmoving party. Celotex,477U.S.at322-24;Shaw v.Stroud,13 F.3d 791,798 (4th Cir.1994). However,the nonmoving party may notrely on beliefs,conjecture,speculation,orconclusory allegationsto defeatamotionforsummaryjudgment.Baberv.Hosp.Corp.ofAm.,977F.2d 872,874-75(4th Cir.1992). Instead,thenonmovingparty mustproduceGdsignificantlyprobative''evidencefrom which areasohablejury couldreturn averdictin hisfavor,AbcorCom .v.AM Int'l.Inc.,916 F.2d924,930 (4th Cir.1990)(quotingAnderson,477U.S.at249-50). B. Retaliation Edwardshasno iGconstitutionalentitlem entto and/ordue process interestin accessing a grievanceprocedure.'' Bookerv.S.C.Dep'tofCon'.,855F.3d 533,542 (4th Cir.2017),cert. denied,138 S.Ct.755 (2018). He hasa FirstAmendmentrightto be 9ee fm m retaliation, 4 however,forfiling theemergency grievancesasanexerciseofhisrightto petition forredress.Id. l&Retaliation,though itisnotexpressly referred to in the Constim tion,isnonetheless actionable (tmderj 1983jbecauseretaliatoryactionsmaytendtochillindividuals'exerciseofconstimtional rights.''Am.CivilLibertiesUrlion v.W icomicoCty.,999F.2d780,785(4thCir.1993).On the other hand, the court m ust treat an inm ate's claim of retaliation by prison oo cials Gtwith skepticism ,''because prison officials'actions are often taken in directresponse to a prisoner's conduct.Coclzranv.M onis,73F.3d 1310,1317(4thCir.1996).Gç(Tjostateacolorableretaliation claim underSection 1983,aplaintiffmustallegethat(1)heengagedinprotectedFirstAmendment activity,(2)thedefendanttook someaction thatadversely affected hisFirstAmendmentrights, and(3)therewasacausalrelationshipbetweenhisprotectedactivityandthedefendant'sconduct.'' M artinv.Duffv,858F.3d239,249(4thCir.2017),cert.denied,138S.Ct.738(2018). G1A plaintiffsuffersadverse action ifthe defendant'sallegedly retaliatory conductwould likelydeteraperson ofordinaryfirmnessfrom theexerciseof(theprotected)rights.''Id.at500. Theplaintiffmustallegesufficientfactsto warrantconcern thattheallegedretaliation m ighthave a chilling effecton the exercise of the right and show thathe suffered m ore than de m inimis inconvenience.Am.Civ.LibertiesUnion,999 F.2d at785-86n.6.Thus,Gûgiln ordertoestablish (ajcausalcormection,aplaintiffinaretaliationcasemustshow,attheveryleast,thatthedefendant wasawareofghimjengaginginprotectedactivity.''Constantinev.Rectors& VisitorsofGeorge M asonUniv.,411F.3d474,501(4th Cir.2005). Edwards assertsthat DeBord told him he wmsbeing fired because he filed em ergency grievances. Filing agrievance isa protected FirstAm endm entactivity,and,although an inm ate hasno constitutionalrightto aprison job,in thiscase,being fired from employmentforsuch activity qualifiesasan adverse action to supportaretaliation claim . Booker,855 F.3d at543-45 5 CplnintiT s)righttoflleaprison grievance9ee9om retaliation wasclearly establishedunder theFirstAmendmenf);seee.g,,Bradlevv.ConartwNo.17-2340,2018U.S.App.LEM S26078, 2018 WL 5à83929,at*2 (6th Cir.Sept.13,2018) C(T)he loss ofaprison job can in some cirolmstnncesbe deemed an adverse action forpuposesofa retaliation c1aim.'');Vimmlo v. Miller,120F.3d 1075,1078(9th Cir.1997)(holdingdiscltarge9om pdsonjob inretaliaoonfor exerciseofconRtitufonnldghtconstitutesadverseaction despiteabsenceofconstitutionalrightto prisonjob);Bakerv -.Zlochowon.,741F.Supp.436,439(S.D. N .Y.1990)(t(A1claim forrelief canbesutedtmdersection1983forjobforreassignmen? orterminationswhichwereinretaliation foraninmate'seffortstoseekvindicauonofhislegalrights...'').Takingtheevidenceinthelight mostfavorabletoEdwards,thecourtconcludesthatareasonablefactfm dercouldrulein hisfavor on theretaliation claim . DeBord states,and may wellproveattdal,thatEdwardswas& ed for poorjobperformance.BecausethecourtGndsgen'lineissuesofmaterialfactindispute,however, thecourtw111denyDeBord'smotionforsummaryjudm ent4 111. CONCLUSION Forthe reasonsstated herein,the defendant'smotion forsummary judgmeùtmustbe denied.An appropriateorderwillissuethisday. Theclerk* 1sendcopiesoftllism em orandum opinionandtheaccompanying ordertothe plaintif andto cotmselofrecordforthedefend= t. . .. ENTER:Tltis f' N x . day ofAugust,2019. SeniorU rlited States Disi ctJudge 4 Thematerialdisputesthatprecludesummaryjudgmentonthemeritsarealsofataltothedefendant's argumentforsnmmag judgmentonthepotmdofquah'fedimmunity.SeeBuonocorev.Harris.65F.3d347,359 (4th cir.1995)(holdmgthatwhenregolution ofqualified immtmityquestion and caseitselfb0thdependupon a determinationofwhatactuallyhappened,sllmmaryjudgmentonpotmdsofqualifiedimmunityisnotproper). 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
