Daniel v. Adult Detention Center et al, No. 7:2018cv00586 - Document 6 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 1/28/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICEU.S.DIST,COUR-I AT ROANOV ,VA FI LED JAN 22 2219 IN TH E UN ITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT FOR TH E W ESTER N D ISTRICT O F W RG IN IA RO AN O K E D IW SIO N JULIA C DUDL BY: D C RK CL , g'-'xw CASE N O .7:18CV00586 A DIèIM R YAN D AN IEL, Plaintiff, M EM O RAN DUM O PINION V. A DULT DETENTION CENTER , By: G len E.Conrad SeniorU nited States DistrictJudge c K , Defendants. A drian Ryan D aniel,a V irginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,filed this civilrights action pursuant to 42 U .S.C .j 1983,alleging thatjailofficialsunlawfully removed him from work releasefortesting positivefordnlg use.Hehasnow paidthe $400.00Gling costs. Afterreview ofthe record,the courtconcludesthatthiscivilaction m ustbe sum m arily dism issed. 1. Atthe tim e hisclaim sarose,D anielw as confined atthe DanvilleA dultD etention Center (EEDADC''). Hewasserving a sentence ofeleven monthsand 29 days. On April30,2018, D aniel began participating in the DAD C work release program . A ll w ork release inm ates underwent random drug testing on Septem ber 17,2018. Ofticer Chandler showed D anielhis test. ET aintlines show ed on A mphetam ine and opiates.'' Com pl.3,ECF N o.1. D anieldenied having taken drugsand insisted the testw as negative for drug use,because faintlines showed on a1lsix panels ofthe test. Lt.Huntordered anothertestforD aniel,w ith the same results. D aniel . Daniel v. Adult Detention Center et al recqived a disciplinary charge fortesting positive foropiates. Doc. 6 Atthe disciplinary hearing,D anielpresented evidence thatcertain legalm edications that he had taken on Septem ber27,2018,could have caused afalse positive on the drug tests.D aniel denied having taken any opiates. Captain W alker,the hearing officer,had both ofD aniel's drug Dockets.Justia.com tests.ETrom 4 feetaway,(Daniellcouldseethelineunderopiates,''andhetold Walkerthatthe testsw ere both negative. ld.at5. W alker stated thatw ithoutproof Danielhad taken the legal m edicationsthatm ighthave caused a false positive on the drug test,W alkerwas Gnding D aniel guilty of testing positive for opiates. H e ordered Daniel rem oved from work release and deducted ten daysofhis good conducttim e. O n appeal,Daniel'srequestforoutside analysis of ' the drug testpanels was denied, and W alker,s rulings w ere upheld.l A ccording to D aniel,he could have earned between $8,000 and $10,000 in the work releaseprogram during the last 18 weeksofhisjailtime.Hecompletedserviceofhisprisonterm onJanuary 18,2019. Danielfiled this j1983 action in December 2018 againstDADC,Hunt,Chandler, W alker,M ardiavich,and two other DAD C officials. Liberally constnled,the complaintalleges thatthese defendants deprived Danielofhis potentialearnings from w ork release based on false positive drug test results,in violation of due process. A s relief,Daniel seeks com pensatory dam agesforthew ageshe was unable to earn afterbeing rem oved from work release. II. The court is required to dism iss any action or claim Gled by a prisoner against a govem m entalentity orofficerifthe courtdeterm ines the action orclaim is frivolous,m alicious, orfailstostateaclaim onwhichreliefmaybegranted.28U.S.C.j1915A(b)(1).A (tfrivolous'' claim is one thatççlacks an arguable basiseither in law or in fact,''because itisttbased on an indisputably meritless legaltheory''or its çGfactualcontentions are clearly baseless.'' N eitzke v. W illiams,490U.S.319,325,327(1989)(interpretingEffrivolous''informerversionof28U.S.C. j 1915(d)). Section 1983permitsan aggrieved partyto fileacivilaction againstaperson for actionstaken undercolorof state 1aw thatviolated his constitutionalrights. Cooperv.Sheehan, 1 Daniel'swife also visited with DADC DirectorFrank M ardiavich and recorded theirinterview . M ardiavich refused to provide hera copy ofthe drug testing policy orto answermany ofherquestions. He also refused to giveherDaniel'sdrug testswithouta subpoena. ' 735F.3d 153,158(4thCir.2013). Asan initialmatter,DanielcannotprevailagainsttheDADC. A jailbuilding cannot qualify asaperson subjecttobeingsuedunderj1983.Thus,thecoul'tmustdismisshisclaims againsttheDADC. W hiletheotherdefendantsmay be sued under51983,theclaimsagainst them m ustbe dism issed forotherreasons. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth A m endm ent provides that no state shall lEdeprive any person oflife,liberty,orproperty w ithoutdue process of law .'' U .S.Const.am end. XIV,j 1. Prison disciplinary proceedingsthatimplicatea protected liberty interest,such as accum ulated good conduct tim e, trigger federal due process protections. See W olff v. McDonnell,4l8U.S.539,557-58(1974).Ontheotherhand,dcgplrison disciplinaryproceedings are notpartof a crim inalprosecution,and the fullpanoply of rights due a defendant in such proéeedingsdoesnotapply.'' Id.at556.Theinmatefacingaprisondisciplinarychargeenjoys theselimited,constitutionallyguaranteedproceduralprotections:(1)writtennoticeofthecharge; (2)disclosureofevidenceagainsthim;(3)therightto callwitnessesand presentdocumentary evidenceabsentsafetyconcerns;(4)aneutralfactsnder;and(5)awritten statementofreasons fordisciplinary action. Id.at564-71. The evidentiary standard for prison disciplinary proceedings also differs from the standard used in crim inal proceedings. Cif' he fundam ental fairness guaranteed by the D ue Process Clause does not require courts to set aside decisions of prison administrators (in disciplinary proceedings! thathave some basis in fact.'' Superintendent.M ass.Corr.Inst., Walpolev.Hill,472U.S.445,456(1985).Thus,whenan inmatechallengestv suftkiency of the evidence to supporthis disciplinary conviction orpenalty,due process requirem ents are m et w hen there is Sûsom e evidence''in the record dûthatcould supportthe conclusion reached.'' 1d.at 455-56. Determ ining Sswhether this standard is satisfied does not require exam ination of the entire record, independent assessm ent of the credibility of w itnesses, or the weighing of evidence-'' 1d.at455. Because Danielwaspenalized w ith the lossofearned good conducttim e,he w as entitled to the due process protections m andated under W olff and H ill.2 The only challenge he brings, how ever, is to the sufticiency of the evidence to supportthe hearing officer's finding. A s evidence atthe hearing,W alkerhad whathe interpreted astwo testdevicesshow ing positive for opiates,D aniel's statem ent that he had not taken opiates,D aniel's evidence that other drugs prescribed to him could cause false positive drug testresults,and D aniel's belief that the two tests were negative foropiates. W alkerapparently found thatthe credibility ofthe testresultsas h.e read them outweighed D aniel's evidence,and ruled thatD anielwas guilty oftesting positive for bpiates. lt is notthe court's province to rew eigh allthe evidence or D aniel's credibility. Because the officer's decision w as supported by som e evidence in the record,the hearing result had somebasisin factandthuscomportedwith dueprocess.Hill,472U.S.at456. Finally,D aniel's claim thathe was wrongfully denied w ork release forthe last 18 weeks ofhis sentence statesno constitutionalviolation actionable underj1983. Prisonershave no constitutionalrightto have ajob in prison,to maintain a particularjob,orto receive a due processhearingbeforebeing removedfrom aprisonjob. SeeAdamsv.James,784 F.2d 1077, 1079(4thCir.1986);Altizerv.Paderick,569F.2d812,813(4thCir.1978).Inmatesalsodonot haveaprotectedlibertyorpropertyinterestinaprisonjobassignment;thus,prisonofficialsmay terminateaninmatefrom hisjobforanyreasonwithoutoffendingfederaldueprocessprinciples. SeeBulgerv. United StatesBureau ofPrisons,65 F.3d 48,49(5th Cir.1995). Similarly,an 2 The courtnotes thatDanieldoes notseek restoration of his good conducttime. M oreover, becauseDanielwasdueforrele% e on January 18,2019,any claim forrestoration ofgood tim eappearsto bemoot. lnmate bas no constitutlonally protected interest in work release participation or potenfal emmlngs.SeeKitchenv.Upshaw.286F.3d 179,188(4thClr.2002).Accore gly,noneofthe defendnntsvlolated Danlel'sconstitlltlonaldghtsby rem ovlng hlm om work release,based on theposltivedrngtests,orbyfallingto reversethehendngom cer'snllings. 111. Forthesereasoûs,the O IM concludesthatDanielhasnotstated factsgiving dseto any constitue nalclnlm. Therefore,thecourtwillsllmmnrlly dlsmissthe action Fithoutpiejudlce lmder j1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a clnlm upon which relief could be ranted. An appropriateorderwillentertbisday.DismissalwlioutprejudiceleavesDsnleleetoreslehis chimqh ' anew and separateciviladion,ifhesodesires. 'Ihe Clerk ls A ected to send copies oftbls memorandum opinion and accompanying orderto Dnnlel. ENTER:This X day ofJanuam 2019. SeniorUnitedSvtesDisG ctJudge 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.
