Robertson v. Sessions et al, No. 7:2018cv00507 - Document 16 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 7/2/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ckO o œ rlçgg 4 glg'rqcur ATplNvlûki,VA FIL/o JUL -2 2212 IN TIIE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT JJL FO R TH E W E STER N D ISTR ICT O F V IR GIN IA R O A N O K E D IW SIO N JA M ES P.RO BER TSO N ,JR ., Plaintiff, BY: . q D g c E ) CASE NO.7:18CV00507 ) ) ) MEM OG NDUM olqxlox JEFFERSON B.SESSIONS,c K , D efendants. ) ) By:JacksonL.Kiser ) SeniorUnitedStatesDistrictJudge ) PlaintiffJam es P.Robertson,Jr.,a federalinm ate proceeding pro K ,hasfiled this civil . rights action,pursuantto Bivensv.Six U nknow n N am ed A l s.ofFed.Bureau ofN arcotics,403 U.S.388(1971). Heallegesthatprison oftkialsinterfered with hisabilityto pursueapetition for a w rit of certiorari regarding the denial of his m otion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentenceunder28U.S.C.j2255.Afterreview oftherecord,1concludethathiscomplaintmust be summ arily dism issed,because he hasfailed to accomplish service on the defendants and his allegationsfailto state aclaim upon which reliefcan begranted. In 2002,while underindictmentforbank robbery in the United StatesDistrictCotu'tfor the M iddle District ofFlorida,Robertson entered into a plea agreement with the government. United Statesv.Robertson,CaseNo.8:08-cr-240,2014 W L 12603511,at*1(M .D.Fla.2014) (tmpublished). Thatagreementwaswithdrawn afterthe governmentdiscredited Robertson's testimony atsentencingthathisco-defendanthad coerced him. Ltt. Sentencingwascontinued, Robertson v. Sessions et al Doc. 16 and R obertson obtained new counsel, w ho inform ed prosecutors that R obertson w anted to cooperate w ith 1aw enforcem ent. ld. R obertson told agents that he had been present w ith m em bers of a skinhead group w hen two hom eless m en were beaten to death in Septem ber of Dockets.Justia.com . 1998. 1d.at#2.Prosecutorsdid notbelievehisinformation wascomplete ortruthfuland opened an investigation thatled to Robertson'sbecom ing a suspectin them urders.Id. In M ay of2008,Robertson and aco-defendantwereindicted on two countsofmtlrderfor thepurposeofm aintaining and increasingtheirpositionsin an entep riseengaged in racketeering activity,inviolation oftheviolentcrimesin aid ofRacketeering (GSVICAR'')statute,18U.S.C. j 1959(a). J#z. The co-defendantpleaded guilty and testified against Robertson. A jury ultimately found Robedson guilty on both counts,and thecotu'tsentenced him to atenn oflife in prison.ld.ThecourtofappealsrejectedhisdirectappealonNovember12,2013.UnitedStates v.Robertson,736F,3d 1317(11th Cir.2013). Robertson filed llisfirstj2255 motion on August11,2014,arguing thatthe VICAR statute is unconstitutional and thathis trialcounselprovided ineffective assistance in various w ays. RobeMson,2014 NUL 12603511 at*2. On November25,2014,the districtcourtfound both claimstobewithoutmerit,deniedreliefunderj2255,and declinedtoissueacertificateof appealabilitytmder28U.S.C.j2253(c)(2).1d.at*6.Robertson filedatimely noticeofappeal, and on April 20,2015,he filed an amended notice of appealand m otion for certificate of appealability from the courtofappeals;the courtdenied his motion,dismissed the appeal,and denied his m otion for reheadng > banc.in A ugust2015. See Robertson v.U nited States,N o. 14-15827(11th Cir.2015. Robertson then had 90 daysto file a petition fora writofcertiorariin the United States Suprem e Court. On A ugust 15,2015,he w astransfen' ed from the U nited States Penitentimy in LeeCounty,Virginia(CIUSP Lee''),totheUnited StatesPenitentiaryin Coleman,Florida(GtUSP Colemarp'l. He allegesthatGthislegalpaperswhich underFederalnzlesare keptin a separate envelope in his cell did not accom pany him . H e alleges they w ere deliberately contiscated to 2 block a petition for certiorarito the U.S.Supreme Court. Am.Compl.5, (ECF No.131. lncoming m ail f' rom the courts was allegedly iiroutinely delayed by a week or 10 days after receiptin theprison m ailroom ,''and stafffailed to deliversuch m ailto Robertson in person orto keep a properlog. Id.at6. According to Robertson,hem anaged to tsle atimely certioraripetition,buton N ovem ber 12,2015,the Supreme Conrtrejected his filing as improperly formatted. The Cout'tgave R obertson 60 days S%to m ake corrections such as reprinting prior orders in required Gpnm phlet' fonnat.'' Id.at5. M aking these corrections çlwascomplicated by the factthatthe originals of someofthosedocumentgsqwereinthefilewaylaidby theBOP,whileotherswereOrderswhich theBOP neverforwarded to''Robertson.JIJ . OnJanuary27,2016,theCourtallegedlyrejected . Robertson'scorrectedpetition asuntim ely. Theinmate'sprison unitm anager(tsubmitted aletter explainingthatRobertson'slegalfilesnevergotfrom Virginiato Florida and asked theSupreme Coul'tto granta m otion perm itting his application for a writto be served outof tim e,butthe Supreme Court denied such motion.'' 1d. Robertson's ççwindow''to file a proper certiorari petition closed on M arch 31,2016. 1d. ln October of2018,Robertson tiled this Bivens action,nnm ing then-Attorney General JeffSessionsand num erousJolm Doesasdefendants. Hepaidthefullfiling costsand was,thus, responsible f0raccomplishing service on thedefendants. In January 2019,a processsenrerfiled affidavits (ECF Nos.10 and 111,claiming to have delivered a mlmmons and a copy ofthe com plaint to M ichael Breckton, U SP W arden; and Charles B arnett, U SP Lee m ailroom staff m ember- two individualsidentified asdefendantsonly in thetextofthecomplaint. Theprocess serverreported thathehad leftone mlmm onsatBreckton'sUSP Leeofficeand had leftthe other sum m ons on Bnrnett's car in the U SP parldng lot. 3 ThecourtthennotisedRobertsonthathiscomplaintincludedlmrelated,misjoinedclaims and directed him to file atl nm ended complaint to take the place of the original complaint. Robertson fled an nm ended com plaintin Febnzary of 2019 thatnarrow ed the scope of the case to a claim thatprison officialsatUSP Lee and U SP Coleman deprived him ofhisrightto access the courts. Robertson also identised asdefendantsthatR.S.Cheatham ,USP Colem an W arden' , and John Doe,GGofficerin charge ofthe mailroom atUSP Coleman.'' IIL.at3. Because the am ended complaintfailed to stateany claim againstSessionsorto identify the m any otherJohn Doedefendants,Idism issed thesedefendantsfrom thelawsuit. The courtnotised Robertson by orderdated M arch 15,2019,thatifhefailed to accomplish serviceofhisamended claim son the defendantswithin 90 days,hisclaimsagainstthem wouldbe dismissed lmderRule4(m)ofthe FederalRulesofCivilProcedure.' lI. Rule4(rn)setsa90-daytirn. elirnitforserviceofafederalcivilcornplaint: Ifadefendantisnotserved within 90 daysafterthe com plaintisfled,the court-on m otion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--m ust dism ifs the action withoutprejudice againstthatdefendantororderthatservice bemade within a specifed tim e. But if the plaintiff show s good cause for the failure,the court m u7stextend the tim eforserviceforan appropriateperiod. Fed.R.Civ.P.4(m). The90-day period forRobertson to accomplish service ofthe nmended com plainthas expired. The courtgave him ample notice that faillzre to serve the defendants would resultin dism issalofhis claims againstthem in the nmended complaint. Robertson has notreturned to courtsince thatnotice issued,norhashe offered any evidence to the courtthat any ofthe defendants have been selwed with the am ended com plaint.l Robertson also has not shown causeforfailing to serve the defendantswith thatdocllm entwithin 90 days afterhe filed j' 1note thatthe attem pts atservice ofthe originalcomplainton Beckton and , asdocumented by theprocessserver'saffidavits(ECF Nos.10 and 11),donotmeetthestatutoryrequirementsforpersonal service.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.4(e);Va.CodeAnn.j8.01-296. 4 it. Accordingly,IconcludethatRobertson'sclaim sagainstallthe defendantsrem aining in tllis actionmustbedismissedwithoutprejudice,pttrsuanttoRule4(m). In any event,I also determ ine that Robertson's complaintfails to state any actionable j 1983claim againstthedefendantshehasidentised. Thecourtmay summarilydismissacase Stbroughtwithrespecttoprison conditions...by aprisonerconfinedin anyjail,prison,orother correctionalfacility ifthe coul'tissatisfed thatthe action isfrivolous,m alicious,failsto state a claim upon which relief can be granted.'' 42 U.S.C.j 1997e(c)(1). A complaintmustbe dismissed ifitdoesnotallegeCçenough factsto state aclaim to reliefthatisplausibleon itsface.'' BellAtl.Corn.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,570 (2007).Section 1983permitsan aggrievedparty to file a civilaction against a person for actions taken tm der color of state law thatviolated his constimtionalrights.Cooperv.Sheehan,735F.3d 153,158(4th Cir.2013). Robertson's amended complaintdoes not describe any action that Breckton,Barnett, Cheathnm ,or Jolm D oe has taken,personally,thatviolated Robertson'srights or harm ed M m in any way.Robertson apparently seeksto holdthesçsupervisory officialsvicariously liableforthe actions oftheirsubordinateswho allegedly m islaid Robertson's legalpaperwork ordelayed his legalmail. Vicariousliability forsupervisory officials,also known asrespondeatsuperior,does notapply in j1983cases,however. See,e.c.,Vinnedgev.Gibbs,550F.2d 926,928 (4th Cir. 1977)(fnding thatunderj 1983,Ctliability willonly 1iewhereitisaffirmatively shownthatihe official chazged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiftl'sq rights'). M oreover, Robertson has not stated facts supporting any reasonable inference that anyone intentionally interfered with hislegalmaterialsorlegalmail. See Pink v.Lester,52 F.3d 73,75 (4th Cir. 1995)(finding thatnegligentactionswhich interfere with an inmate'slitigation effortsdo not 5 supportactionableclaimstmderj1983thatdefendantdeprivedplaintiffofconstitutionalrightto accessthecourts). Forthestated reasons,lam satisfied thatRobertson'sj 1983 complaintfailsto state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A ccordingly, I w ill sum m mily dism iss this action withoutprejudice.DismissalwithoutprejudiceleavesRobertson freetoretilehisclaim inanew and separatelawsuitifhecan correctthe deficienciesdescribed in thisOpinion,subjectto any applicable statute oflim itations. The Clerk is directed to send copies ofthis m emorandum opinion and accom panying orderto plaintiff. ENTER:ThiJ / dayofJuly,2019. v' . , tt - t : Se iorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 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.
