Reaves v. Clarke, et al, No. 7:2018cv00553 - Document 27 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 4/18/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
:k#.*.A :T,1p 4 .A 1t )N41v:slk :jë l@:Qe <' ,VA FILED IN TH E UN ITED STA TES D ISTR ICT CO U R T FO R TH E W E STER N DISTR ICT O F V IR GIN IA R OA N O K E D IW SIO N AFR !2'2218 JU BY; . . D P *% CLERK L JERM M N E D .REA V ES, Plaintiff, C A SE N O .7:18C V 00553 M EM O R AN D UM O PINIO N HAROLD W .CLARKE,5. I AFz, By: H on.Jaclkson L .K iser Senior U nited States DistrictJudge D efendants. Jermaine D .Reaves,a Virginia inm ate proceeding pm K ,filed this civilrights action pursuantto 42 U.S.C.j1983,complaining thathe hasbeen housed in segregated continement instead ofbeing transferred to a prison in llishom e state ofN ew Y ork.A fterreview ofthe record, 1concludethatthedefendantsareentitledtosummm'yjudgmentasamatteroflaw. Reavesisl :ncarcerated atW allensRidgeStatePrison ($:W allensRidge''), ahigh sectlrity facilityin Pound,Virginia,operatedby theVirginiaDepartmentofCorrections(&CVDOC'').As . defendants to tllis lawsuit,he nam es VDOC Director Harold W .Clarke,Director of Offender M anagementServicesJamesE.Paris,and W allensRidgeUnitM anagerDennisR.Collins.As relief,Reavesseeksanawardofmonetarydamagesatldcostsand injtmctivereliefdirectingthat he m ustbe transferred closerto hishom e in N ew York. Reaves alleges that a series ofpast events,llnrelated to the defendants in this case,have Reaves v. Clarke, et al Doc. 27 m adehim fearfulforhissafety ifhe isassigned to a generalpopulation unitata VDOC prison. H e has allegedly signed form s refusing a general population assignm ent and has requested a transferunderan Interstate Com pactto a differentstate'sprison,closerto hishom e in N ew Y ork. Reavesbelievesthathe clearly qualifiesforsuch atransfer,butthe defendantshavem ongfully Dockets.Justia.com m aintained him in segregation form onthsinstead. There,hehaslittlehllm an contactand cnnnot interactwith hisfam ily,includinghiscllildren.Hehasexperiencedvariousem otionaldifficulties, alzantinfestation,andunspecifiedEslightingissues.''(Am.Compl.20,(ECFNo.41.)Heisallowed only tw o telephone callsperm onth. Reavesalso statesthatwhilein segregation,his&(JP5Player(ElectronicDeviceused for Emailstofnmilyetc.)wastakenwhenitmalfunctioned (NbtDisciplinarvl.''(Id.at10.) Officials refusedtoreblrnthedeviceorothelwisettresolvethesimation''by fixingorreplacingit.(Id.at4, 17.) Liberally construingtheam ended complaint,1find thatReaveshasassertedthefollowing claimsllhderj1983: (1)he hasbeen held in segregated confinementforalengthy period,in violation ofdueprocess;(2)thedefendantshavefailedtotransferhim outsideVirginia,although heisnotsafe whereheisconfined;and (3)hisJP5 devicewasconfiscated andnotrepaired or replaced.Thedefendantshavefiled amotion forsllmmaryjudgment(ECF No.17j,andReaves hasresponded. Reaveshasalso filed amotion forpreliminary injunctiverelief(ECF No.61,a motionfordefault(ECFNo.23j,and aGscrossM otion forSllmmaryJudgment''(ECFNo.25j. Asan initialmatter,Reavesisnotentitledtodefaultjudgment. On January 4,2019,the clerk electronically notified the O ffice ofthe A ttorney G eneral of Reaves' nm ended com plaint, pursuant to an agreem ent betw een that office and the court. The agreem ent provides that the defendantsw ho are represented by an attorney from thatoffice then have sixty daysto respond to the com plaint.A n attorney in thatofficefiled w aiversofservice forthe defendantslaterin January andfiledananswerandasllmmaryjudgmentmotionontheirbehalfonM arch4,2019,withinthe sixty-dayperiodasdirected.Accordingly,IwilldenyReaves'motionfordefaultjudgment. 111. An award of summary judgmentis appropriate Gsifthemovantshows thatthere isno genuinedisputeastoanymaterialfactandthemovarltisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflam '' Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a).Foraparty'sevidencetoraiseagenuineissueofmaterialfactsufficientto avoid sllmmaryjudgment,itmustbeGçsuch thatareasonablejuzy could return averdictforthe non-movingparty.''Anderson v.LibertvLobbvsInc.,477U.S.242,248(1986).Inmnkingthis determination,Gçthe courtisrequired to view the facts and draw reasonable inferencesin a light mostfavorabletothenonmovingparty.''Shaw v.Stroud,13F.3d791,798(4thCir.1994). Sûll3jecausevicaziousliabilityisinapplicableto...j1983suits,aplaintiffmustpleadthat each Government-officialdefendant,through the ofscial's own individualactions,hasviolated theConstitution.'' Ashcroftv.lubal,556U.S.662,676 (2009).tlW herea complaintallegesno specific actorconducton the partofthe defendantand the com plaintissilentasto the defendant exceptforhisname appearing in the caption,the complaintisproperly dismissed,even underthe liberalconstm ctiontobegivenprosecomplaints.''Potterv.Clark,497F.2d 1206,1207(7thCir. 1974)1 At the m ost, Reaves' subm issions contend thatthe defendants,as administrators and supervisory officials,are autom atically liable forthe past assaults,the failtlre to transferhim out- of-state,them onthsofsegregated confinementitsalleged effectson him ,and theconsscation and failureto fix orreplacehisJP5device.Reavesdoesnotdescribeany particularaction orom ission by any ofthe three defendants that caused or failed to alleviate the alleged violations. H e also doesnotdem onstratethatany ofthe violationsheallegesoccun' ed pursuantto anypolicy forw hich thesedefendantsisresponsible.Becausevicariousliabilitydoesnotapplyin j1983actionsand 1 Ihave om itted internalquotations, alterations,and ciàtionshereand throughoutthisopinion, unlessotherwisenoted. Reavespresentsnothing m orethan thatcontention,Iconcludethatthedefendantsare entitled to summaryjudgmentasamatterof1aw. 2 M oreover,Reaves'j 1983 claimsdo notriseto thelevelofconstimtionalviolationsby anyone.First,Ifind no constim tionalrightforReavesto betransferred from theV D O C to aprison inanotherstatenearertohishome.tçlustasaninmatehasnojustifiableexpectationthathewill beincarceratedinanyparticularprisonwithinaState,hehasnojustifiableexpectationthathewill beincarceratedinanyparticularState.''Olim v.W akinekona,461U.S.238,245(1983).Second, while prison officials have a constitutionalobligation to take reasonable m easures to protect inm ates against assaults from other inm ates,Reaves fails to show that he is currently confined underconditionsthatpresentthatparticularhazard.Third,tem porary confinementin segregation foradm irlistrativereasons,orbecauseofReaves'own refusalofageneralpopulation assignm ent, doesnotim plicatellisconstitutionalrights,even when conditionsdo notm irrorthosein thegeneral population. SeeSandin v.Conner,515U.S.472,486 (1995). Finally,Reaveshasattempted to build a j1983 complaintcomprised ofconclusory assertionsthathisconstitutionalorstatutory rightshavebeen violated,buthestatesno supportingfacts.GIEAJpleadingthatofferslabelsand conclusionsoraformulaicrecitation ofthe elem entsofacause ofaciion willnotdo.Nordoesa com plaintsuffice ifittendersnaked assertionsdevoid offurtherfactualenhancem ent.''Iqbal,556 U .S.at678. 2 Based on this same pleading deficiency,1 cannotfind that Reaves has shown a likelihood of successonthemeritsofhisj 1983 claims,asrequiredforthepreliminary injunctivereliefheseeks. See W interv.Nat.Res.Def.Councilplnc.,555 U.S.7,20 (2008)(holding thatparty seeking preliminary injunctionmustmakeclearshowing (tthathe islikely to succeedon the merits,thatheislikelyto suffbr irreparablehann in theabsenceofpreliminaryrelietlthatthebalanceofequitiestipsinhisfavor,andthat an injunction isinthepublicinteresf'). 4 Forthereasonsstated,lconcludethatthedefendantsareentitledtosllmmaryjudgmentas a m atter of1aw .3 A ccordingly, Iw illgranttheirm otion and deny Reaves'm otions forsum m ary judgment,preliminaryinjunctiverelief,anddefaultjudgment.Anappropriateorderwillissuethis day. ENTEREDthisf=. 'dayofApril,2019. e k z . IOR U N ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU DG E 3Asanalternativebasisforsummaryjudgment,thedefendantspresentevidencethatReavesfailed to exhaust adm inistrative rem edies as to his firsttwo claim s before filing this law suit. See 42 U .S.C. j1997e(a)(requiring prisonerto exhaustavailable administrative remediesbefore filing federalcourt action aboutprison conditions). Reaveshas not disguted the defendants'evidence orstated facts dem onstrating thatadm inistrative rem edieswerenotavallable to him . Therefore,1concludethatReaves' failureto comply with j1997e(a)providesan alternative ground forsummaryjudgmentin favorofthe defendantsastotwoofhisj 1983claims. 5
]]>
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.
