Baker v. Clarke, No. 7:2018cv00620 - Document 23 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 6/20/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'SOFFICE U.s.Dls<.couRT : ATDANVILLE,VA FILED IN TH E U NITED STATES D ISTR ICT C O U R T FO R TH E W ESTERN DISTW CT OF VIRGINIA R O A N O K E D IV ISION JUN 1 C 2912 J IA . DLR BY: DEPUW CLERK DW A YN E BA K ER , Petitioner, CASE NO.7:18CV 00620 V. M EM O R AN DU M O PIN IO N H A R O LD CL AR K E , By: H on.Jackson L .K iser SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge Respondent. PetitionerDwayneBaker,aVirginiainmateproceeding proK ,filedthispetition forawrit ofhabeascorpus,ptlrsuantto28U.S.C.j2254,challengingadministrativ' edecisionsinM archand Aprilof2017 thatreduced the rateatwhich hewould enrn good-behaviorcreditagainsthisstate prison sentence. Thepetition ispresently before m e on the respondent'sm otion to dismiss and Baker'sresponsethereto. Forthereasonssetforth below,Iwillgrantthem otionto dism iss. 1. Bakerisin thecustody oftheVirginia DepartmentofCorrections(E&VDOC''),serving a six-yearprison term foraggravated involtmtary m anslaughter,imposed inD ecem berof2014.1 In M ay of2016,Bakerwasconfned atCoffeewood CorrectionalCenter(CCCW CC'')andhadbeen assigned to Class Level 1 for purposes of accruing Gisentence credit''to reduce his term of cov nement. (Pet.12,(ECF No.11). Baker'sability to earn sentence cwditisgoverned by Virginia'sstatutoryschemetitledGtEnrnedSentenceCreditsEEGESC'')forpersonsCommittedUpon Baker v. Clarke Doc. 23 Felony OffensesCommittedon orAfterJanuary 1,1995.'' SeeVa.CodeAnn.jj53.1-202.2to 53.1-202.4.AtzEsc-eligibleinm atecan earnam axim um offourandone-halfttsentencecredits'' 1Thefactualallegationsinthissectionaredrawnfrom Baker'ssubmissionsinthiscase(ECFNos. 1and 15j,statedinthelightmostfavorabletohim.lhavealsoreviewedtheonlinedocketoftheS.upreme ' CourtofV irginia. Dockets.Justia.com RK for each thirty daysofhisprison sentence thathe serves. By statute,the Board ofCorrections establishesRthe criteria upon which aperson shallbe deem ed to have earned sentence credits.'' Va.Code Ann.j53.1-202.4. According to Baker,VDOC Operating Procedure (ç$OP'')830.3 providesthataninmateassignedto ESC ClassLevel1isgrantedthem aximllm numberofsentence creditdaysforevery thirty daysserved,while inmates in ESC ClassLevels2 and 3 are granted fewersentence creditdays dlzring thatperiod,and an inm ate in ESC ClassLevel4 is granted no sentence creditdays. A çtegalUpdate''sheetdated M ay 13,2016,projected thatifBaker ticontinued to earn good time atthe presentearning level,''hisEsGood Tim eRelease''date would beNovember6,2019.(Pet.Ex.7,LECFNo.1q). In 2016 and early2017,however,Bakerincurred rlinedisciplinary infractionsatCW CC.2 (Resp.17,EECFNo.15j).Bakerallegesthatmanyofthesedisciplinarychargestandothercharges since)were based on conductcaused by symptoms of ltis ttNarcolepsy with Cataplexy,''a disability,in violation oftheEighthAmendment(Pet.8,22,(ECF No.1)). On April20,2017, Bakerwastransfen' edto LawrencevilleCorrectionalCenter(1&LVCC'').OnAugust22,2017,he received two VDOC documents,dated M arch 7 and April 19,2017,stating that institutional classifcation authority ((tICA'')hearingshad been conducted,and recommendationsto reduce Bakerto ESC ClassLevel4 hadbeen approved.(Pet.Ex.9,EECF No.12). Hisdisciplinm'y infractions in 2016 and eady 2017 atCW CC were m entioned as one reason forthe ESC Class Levelchange.On August22,2017,Balceralsoreceived aVDOC tsLegalUpdate,''datedApril13, 2017,showing thathe had been reduced to Class Level3 on Novem ber28,2016,and to Class 2 In Bqker'spetition,hecom plainsthatm orethan forty disciplinary proceedingsagainsthim have notcom ported with dueprocessprotections.Hisresponseto them otion to dism issincludesa listofthirtp threedisciplinary charges,only nine ofwhich occurred whileBakerwasatCW CC between M ay 2016 and April2017.Theseninechargesaretheonly onesthatcould havehad any bearing ontheClassLeveichange that occurred in M arch of 2017. Thuy,these nine CW CC charges are the only ones relevant to my consideration ofBaker'shabeaschallengeto thatClassLevelreduction decision. Level4onM arch7,2017.(Pet.Ex.8,EECFNo.11).AtESC ClassLevel4,Bakercouldnotearn good conducttim e. In Aprilof2018,Bakerfiled apetition forawritofhabeascom usin the Suprem eCourtof Virginia,contending thathe was denied due process during disciplinary proceedings on m any charges,includingthenine infractionsheincun'ed atCW CC. (M em.Supp.M ot.Dism .Ex.1, (ECF No.8-1j).BakerreferredtomostofthechargèsastGfalse.''1d.Inhispetition,Bakeralso raised retaliation claim sand com plained oflaterStfalse''disciplinary chargesand faulty hearings atLVCC.TheSuprem eCourtofVirginiadismissedhishabeaspetition in July of2018anddenied hispetition forrehearing in Octoberof2018. Bakersigned and datedhisj2254 petitionon December7,2018.In it,heallegesthese Cjal *m s. VDOC officialsdeprived Balcerofhisliberty interestiltECS sentencecreditswithoutdue process in s4arch and Aprilof2017 because (a)they failed to provide a11required procedtlralprotections during disciplinary proceedings atCW CC in 2016 and 2017,and (b)theyreliedonthewrongfullyobtaineddisciplinazyconvictionstoreduceBakertoClass Level3and 4; VDOC officialshaveconspiredtoretaliateagainstBakerforfilinggrievancesandlawsuits by bringing m ore thm1forty false disciplinary chargesagainsthim thateither caused the reduction ofhisClassLevelorhavesincepreventedhim from being reclassisedto am ore favorable ClassLevel;and VDOC officialsdiscdminated againstBaker,in violation ofthe EqualProtection Clause oftheFourteenth Am endm ent,becauseheisaGEdisabledAfrican-Am erican Prisoner''who filed grievances. Asrelief,BakerseeksElgrlestorationofEamed SentenceCredits,''invalidation ofalldisdplinary infradions,andEsimmediateorspeedierrelease''from confinement.(1d.) Respondehthasfiled a motion to dism iss,arguing thatBaker'sclaim sareuntimely filed, withoutm erit,ornotcognizablein ahabeascorpusproceeding.Bakerhasresponded,making the m atterripe fordisposition.3 Il. Theone-yearperiodoflimitationforflingahabeaspetitionunderj2254beginstortm on thelatestoffotlrdates: (A) thedate on which thejudgmentbecamefinalby the conclusion ofdirect review ortheexpiration ofthetim eforseeking such review; (B) thedateon which theimpedimenttofilingan application creqtedby State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the Uited States is removed,ifthe applicantwasprevented from filing by such State action; (C) thedateonwhich theconstitutionalrightassertedwasinitiallyrecognized by the Supreme Court,if the right has been newly recognized by the 3 Bakerhasmoved forappointmentofcounseland for leaveto engage in discovery. UnderRule 6(a)oftheRulesGoverningSection2254 Cases,partiesmustobtainleaveofcourtupon goodcauseshown to engage in discovery.Forreasonsexplained herein,Iconclude from the existing record thatBakerisnot entitledtohabeasrelief.Accordinjly,ldonotfindcausetoallow discoveryortoappointcounsel.See18 U.S.C.j3006A(a)(2)(B)(authorizlngappointmentofcounselinj2254caseatcourt'sdiscretiononlyupon findingthatditheinterestsofjusticesorequire'').Accordingly,1willdenyBaker'smotionontheselssues. Bakerhasalso fled a m otion forreconsideration ofmy earlierorder denying his firstmotion for interlocutory injunctive reliefto avoid a transfer. Since ldenied Baker'sfirstmotion,he hasbeen transferred and isnow confinedatSussex 11StatePrison(Ktsussex11',).Assuch,hismotion askingmeto preventhistransferismoot. SeeRendelmanv.Rouse,569 F.3d 182,186(4th Cir.2009)C((Aqsageneral rule,aprisoner'skansferorreleasefrom aparticularprisonmootshisclaimsforinjunctive...reliefwith respecttohisincarcerationthere.''). Baker'ssecondmotionforinterlocutog relief1willalsodeny,becauseitisimproperlypresented in thishabeascorpuscase.Bakerassertsthath1shousing assignm entatSussex 11putshim atrisk ofassault by an enemy inm ateatthatfacility and asksthecourtto orderhistransferto adifferentprison facility.This contention doesnot challenge the factor length of his consnement as required for itto fallwithin the purview ofahabeasaction.SeeWilkinsonv.Dotson,544U.S.74,82(2005)(holdinqthatregardlessof thereliefsoughtorconductchallenged,the properremedy liesin habeascorpusonly lf'ssuccessin (anq actionwouldnecessarilydemonstratetheinvalidityofconfinementoritsduration'').Moreover,Sussex11 islocatedwithinthejurlsdictionoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofVirginia.If warranted,Bakerm ay addresshissafety concerns aboutSussex 11in a new civilrightsaction filed in that coult whichhasjurisdictionoveroo cialswhoarenow accountableforhissafety. 4 Suprem e Courtand made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review ;or (D) the date on which the factualpredicate oftheclaim orclaimspresented could havebeen discoveredthrough the exerciseofdue diligence. 28U.S.C.j2244(d)(1).ThepartiesagreethatBaker'sone-yearfilingperiodmustbecalculated from the time when he could first have discovered,with due diligence,thathis disciplinary convictionshad caused areduction inhisClassLevel. Bakerhas alleged that,through no faultofhis own,he firstdiscovered hisreduction to ClassLevel4 on August22,2017,when hereceived thelCA reports from M arch and Apriland theLegalUpdate.W ith no evidenceto thecontrary,Iw iilacceptthatdateasthetriggerpointfor calculating Baker'sone-yearfiling period tmderj2244(d)(1)(D). In Aprilof2018,afterabout eightm onthsofthe federalfiling pefiod had elapsed,Bakerfiled his state habeaspetition in the Su preme CourtofVirginia. W hilethatpetition waspending,the federalfling period wastolled. 1 See28U.S.C.j2244(*(2)(providingthatçsproperlyfiled''applicationforstatepost-conviction orothercollateralreview tolls federalfiling period). W hen thatpetition had been denied and Baker'spetition forrehearingwasalso denied in Octoberof2018,the federalfiling period began nmningagain.Bakerfledhisj2254petitioninDecemberof2018.Giventhistiming,1conclude thatBaker'sclaim saboutthereductionsin hisClassLevelin M arch and Aprilof2017 cnnnotbe dismissedtmderj2244(d)(1)(D)asuntimelyfiled. I do lind,however,that Baker's separate claim s of due process violations dtuing his individualdisciplinm. y proceedingsin 2016and 2017 werenottimely filed.From therecord,itis clearthatBakerknew the outcom esofthese proceedingswithin weeksaftereach hearing,when hisdisciplinary appealsconcluded.M oreimportantly,hehaspresented no evidencethathecould fzsthavediscoveredany oftheseoutcomesonly afterthereductioninhisClassLevetinM arch of2017.Thus,1willcalculatehisfilingperiodunderj2244(d)(1)(D),startinginM archof2017, when those infractions were used in the decision to reduce his ESC Class Level. As such,l conclude thatBaker's one-yearperiod to file afederalhabeaspetition challenging each ofthese ninedisciplinary proceedingsin 2016 and 2017 expiredno laterthan Aprilof2018.Therefore,to the extentthat he attempts in his current petition to bring due process challenges about the disciplinary proceedingsthem selves,hisclaimsarebnrred asuntim ely filed. 111- A federalcourtrnaygranthabeasrelieffrornastatecourtjudglnentEtonlyonthegrotmti thatgthepetitioner)isin custodyin violation oftheConstitutionorlawsortreatiesoftheUnited States.'' 28U.S.C,j2254($. TheFourteenth Amendmentprohibitsastatefrom depriving an individualof liberty withoutdue process oflaw. U.S.Const.am end.XIV. A constimtionally protected liberty interestGGmay arisç from the Constimtion itself,by reason ofguaranteesimplicit in the word liberty,...oritm ay arise from an expectation orinterestcreated by state laws or policies.''4 W illdnsonv.Austin,545U.S.209,221(2005). Inm ateshavenolibertyinterestderivedfrom theConstitution itselfin receiviùg good-time creditorin a particulargood-time creditearning level. W olffv.M cDormell,418 U.S.539,557 (1974).Thus,forBakertosucceedinhisclaim,hemustshow thatVirginiastatutesorregulations createaprotectedlibertyinterestforllim inretaininghisESC ClassLevel.Thisshowinghecnnnot ' make.Onthecontrary,GtitiswellestablishedthatVirginiainmatesdonotenjoyaprotectedliberty interest in the rate at wbich they enrn either Enrned Sentence Credits or Good Conduct % Allowances,''anotherform ofsentence credits som eVDOC inm atesm ay be granted. Dennisv. 4 I have om itted internal quotation m arks, alterations,and citations here and throughout this memorandum opinion,unlessotherwise noted. 6 Clarke,No.3:15CV603,2016W L 4424956,at+6 (E.D.Va.Aug.17,2016)(citingmanycases); Millsv.Holmes,95F.Supp.3d924,931-34(E.D.Va.2015). State statutes create a liberty interest entitled to federal constitutional due process protections when they involve a stams change thatGiinevitably affectlsjthe duration of''the inmate's cov nement. Sandin v.Cormer,515 U.S.472,484 (1995).ltll N' qo constitutionally protected liberty interestis .created tmder the gstatutozyq regime lifj either the primary decisionmakerorany reviewing authority isauthorized to ovenide,asam atterofdiscretion,any classification suggested by application ofthe prescribed substantivecriteria.'' M ills,95 F.Supp. 3d at933. BecauseVirginia'sgood conducttim eprogrnm sendow officialswith such discretion, whateverchangeaClassLeveladjustmentmay renderinaninmate'sprojectedreleasedatedoes notKtinevitably affect''the actual'length oftime he willserve,so asto create a protected liberty interestunderSandin.Thus,IconcludethatbecauseBakerdidnothaveaprotected liberty interest in retaining hisESC Class Level,he had no federalconstitutionalrightto particularprocedural protectionsdtlring proceedingswhen officialsm adechangesto llisESC ClassLevelin Novem ber of2016,in M arch of2017,oratany ClassLevelreview proceeding sincethen. Bakeralso cnnnotdem onstrateany constitutionalviolationsmising from officials'alleged violations of state 1aw or VDOC regulations related to his ESC Class Level. W hile state regulationsm ay provide formore stringentproceduralprotectionsthan the Due Process Clause requires,&iastate'sfailureto abideby itsown 1aw asto procedtlralprotectionsisnotafederaldue Processissue.'' Brown v.Angelone,938 F.Supp.340,344 (W .D.Va.1996)(citing Riccio v. CotmtyofFairfax,907F.2d 1459,1469 (4th Cir.1990)). Fbrthestated reasonssIwillgrantthe m otion to dism iss as to Baker's claim thatthe defendants deprived him ofa protected liberty interestwhen they changed hisClassLevelin M arch of2017. 7 1also concludethatBaker'sallegationsofconspiracy,retaliation,andracialdiscrimination mustbedism issed.Therespondentarguesthattheseclaim sdonotfallwithinthescopeofahabeas corpusactionandshouldbepresented in acivilrightsaction lmder42 U.S.C.j1983,ifatall. I m akenotinding on thisargum ent,becauseIconclude thatBakerhasnotstated suficientfactsto state claims on thesem atters. To survive the deferidants'm otion to dism issthe complaintunder FederalRule ofCivilProcedure 12(b)(6),the SGcomplaintmustestablish (facialplausibility'by pleading Gfacttzalcontentthatallowsthecourtto draw the reasonableinferencethatthedefendant isliableforthe m isconductalleged.''' Clatterbuck v.City ofCharlottesville,708 F.3d 549,554 (4thCir.2013)(quotingAshcroftv.Igbal,556U.S.662,678(2009$.Bakersimplyfailstomake thenecessary factualshowingsto surviveam otion to dismiss. Toestablish acivilconspiracyclaim actionableunderj1983,aplaintiffmustdemonstrate thatthedefendants'lactedjointlyinconcertandthatsomeovertactwasdoneinfurtheranceofthe conspiracy,''resulting in deprivation of a federalright. Glassman v.Arlindon Cnty..Va.,628 F.3d 140,150 (4th Cir.2010)(quoting Hinklev.City ofClarksblzra,81F,3d416,421(4th Cir. 1996:. A plaintiffmustmake specifc Zlegations thatreasonably lead to the inferencesthat ' . membersoftheallegedconspiracysharedthesameconspiratorialobjectivetotrytotûaccomplish acom mon andunlawfulplan''to violatetheplaintiff'sfederalrights.Hinkle,81F.3d at421. Baker'spetition simply asserts thatnllmerousprison officials conjpired againsthim in bringing disciplinm'y chargesagainsthim ,tsnding him guilty,and elim inating his ability to enrn goodconducttime,based onthedisciplinary convictions.A conspiracy claim cannotariseon such ttrank speculation arld conjecttlre,''especially when the actions are capable of innocent interpretation.Id.at422.M erelylabeling aclzronologicalseriesofactionsbym ultipleindividuals asldconspiTaey,''asBakerhasdonehere,orm ovidingnothingm orethan aconclusory,fom mlaic recitation of the legal elem ents of conspiracy, will not suffice. Nem et Chevrolet v. Constlmeraffairs.comsInc.,591F.3d 250,255(4th Cir.2009).Therefore,Iwillgrantthemotion to dismissasto Baker'sconspiracy contentions. Prison offkialsm ay notretaliateagainstaninmateforexercising hisconstim tionalrightto accessthecourt,Hudspeth v.Ficcins,584 F.2d 1345,1347 (4th Cir.1978),normay they take adionsthatviolatehis(TirstAm endm entrightto bef' reefronîretaliation fortiling a grievance.'' Bookerv.S.C.Dep'tofCo1'r.,855F.3d 533,541(4th Cir.2017).On theotherhand,claimsof retaliation againstprison inm atesmustbetreated with healthy skepticism ,because m any actions by prison offcialsare Gdby definititm Gretaliatory'in the sensethatgthey are injresponlse)to prisonermisconduct''orotherconcerningbehaviors.Cochranv.M onis,73F.3d 1310,1317(4th Cir.1996);Adamsv.Rice,40F.3d72,74 (4th Cir.1994). gT1o stateacolorableretaliation claim underSection 1983,aplaintiffmustallege that(1)heengaged inprotected FirstAmendmentactivity,(2)thedefendanttook someactionthatadverselyaffectedhisFirstAmendmentrights,and (3)therewas acausalrelationship between hisprotected activity and thedefendant'sconduct. M artinv.Duffv,858F.3d239,249(4thCir.2017),cert.denied,. 138S.Ct.738(2018).A plaintiff suffersadverseaction ifthe defendant'sallegedly retaliatory conductwould likely deteraperson ofordinarytinnnessfrom theexerciseofFirstAmendmentrights.i'Ld,s . Baker allegesthathe filed grievancesand atleastone lawsuit,thusexercising his First Amendm entrights.s He also allegesthat,thereafter,because ofdisciplinary convictions,offcials took awayhisability to eprn good copducttim e,which I5nd to bean adverse action forpurposes ofaretaliation claim .Thus,lkispetition allegesfactstom eetthefirstandthirdprongsofthelegal 5 Furthelnnore,courtrecordsreflectthatBakerhastwo civilrightsactions pending atthistim e, Bakerv.D avis,N o.7:18CV 00503 and Bakerv.Gilm ore,No.7:18CV00382. standard foraretaliation claim . Baker'spetition failsutterly,however,underthethirdprong. He sim ply doesnotpresentfactssupporting a reasonable inference thatthe grievancesand lawsuits causedofscialstobringthedisciplinarychargeshedisputesortochangeBaker'sESC ClassLevel. Hism erely ttconclusory allegationsofretaliatory m otiveunsupported bym aterialfactswillnotbe suo cientto state aclaim underj 1983.'' Harbin v.Rutter,420 F.3d 571,580 (6th Cir.2005) (internalquotationmmks,alterations,and citation omitted). M oreover,an inm atemay notstateaclaim ofretaliationwheretheGidisciplinewasimparted foractsthata prisoner was notentitled to perform,''and which were unrelated to the inmate's grievanceorlawsuit. Cowansv.W arren,150F.3d 910,912 (8th Cir.1998)(citation omitted). Bakerfailsto connectany ofhisgrievancesorlawsuitsin any wayto the disciplinarychargesthat contributedtothedecisiontochangehisESC ClassLevel.M oreover,Baker'spetition claim sthat 'm any of the disciplinary infractions he incurred resulted from rule violations caused by his physicaldisabilities and m edicalconditions;he doesnotcontend thathis conductdid notalso violateprisonregulations.See,e.c.,Enrnestv.Courtney,64F.3d365,366-67 (8th Cir.1995)(per ctlriam)(findingassignmenttoutility squad forgnmblingnotretaliation forinmate'stqling ofa grievance);Henderson v.Baird,29F.3d464,465,469 (8th Cir.1994)(findinginmate'sassault chargenotinretaliationforhisreportingharassmenttoFBI);Goffv.Burton,7F.3d734,738(8th Cir.1993)(allegedretaliatorytransfer).Innoneofthesecaseswastheconductwhichfonnedthe basisforthe alleged retaliatory action related to the originalgrievance,and Baker's petition is sim ilarly deficient. For the stated reasons,I will grantthe m otion to dism iss as to Baker's retaliation claim s. Finally,Im ustalso dism iss Baker's allegations of discrim ination and equalprotection violations. Gtf' he EqualProtection Clause generally requires the governmentto treatsim ilarly 10 simatedpeoplealike.''CityofClebm' nev.CleburneLivin:Ctr..lnc.,473U.S.432,439 (1985). Toprove a j 1983 equalprotection claim,an inmate çGmusttirstdemonstrate çthathehasbeen treated differently from othersw ith whom he is sim ilarly situated and thattheunequaltreatm ent wastheresultofintentionalorpurposef'uldiscrimination.'' Veney v.W vche,293 F.3d 726,730 (4th Cir.2002).Bakermakesneitherofthese showings. Hestatesno factsaboutbeingtreated differently than similarly situated inm ates being charged with disciplinary infractionsforacts, when otherinmateswerenotcharged forsim ilaracts.Heprovidesno evidencethatotherinm ates who have incurred nine disciplinary infractionsin the course oflessthan two yearsdid nothave an adversechangein ESC ClassLevel. Balceralso failsto stateany factssuggestingthathisrace orhismedicalissueshavebeen am otivating factorin any particulardisciplinary chargeorin the classification decision to placehim in ESC ClassLevel4.Hisconclusory assertionsthatdisability and race caused these events cnnnot,without supporting facts, state an actionable claim of discrimination oran equalprotedion violation ofany kind. See,e.z.,Chapm an v.Revnolds,378 F.Supp.1137,1140(W .D.Va.1974)(Sndingthatconclusoryaccusationsthatdiflkrenttreatment mayhavebeenmotivatedbyraceareinsufficienttostatesuchaclaim).Iwillgrantthemotionto dismissasto Baker'sFourteenth Amendm entclaim s. In accozdance with the foregoing,1willgrantthe respondent's m otion to dism iss. An appropriateorderwillenterthisday. The Clerk isdirected to send copiesofthismem orandum opinion and accompanying ordertopetitionerand to cotmselofrecord fortherespondent. ENTERED thisRdudayofJune,2019. ) E OR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
