Ferebee v. Gibson et al, No. 7:2019cv00310 - Document 8 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 6/6/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U.B.DIST.COURT ' , AT DANVI LLE,VA FILED IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTR ICT C O U RT FO R TH E W ESTERN D ISTR ICT O F VIR G INIA R O AN OK E D IV ISIO N JUN û51219 Juuwc.àunLE%CL RK sv:j ,j,upsyyouss LO R EN ZA G ER AI,D FER EBEE,JR ., Plaintiffr CA SE N O .7:19CV 00310 V. M EM O R AND U M O PIN IO N D.GIBSON,c AL., By: H on.Jackson L .K iser Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge Defendants. PlaintiffLorenza Gerald Ferebee,Jr.,aVirginiainmateproceeding pro K ,filed thiscivil rightsactionpursua'ntto42U.S.C.j 1983,allegingviolationsofhisfederalandstaterightsrelated to a prison grievance procedtlre. Afterreview ofthe record,the courtconcludesthatthe action mustbe sllmm arily dismissed. 1. Atthe time hisclaimsarose,Ferebee wasconsned atRed Onion State Prison ' (CtRed Onion'').Inearly2019,hegrew frustratedbecauseEssewagewaterkeepcomingupthrew (sicqthe institutionalpod man-holets) and preventing Ehimj from having adequate access to wash his handts)afterusingthecelltoiletinordertoeatanymeal,becausetheoorrectionalOfficergsqhave tottzrnoffthepodwatersupplysystem .''(Compl.7(ECFNo.1).)OnFebruary 15,2019,Ferebee filed an Inform alComplaintfonn aboutthisproblem ,RlOSP-19-1N F-00364.Thesewageproblem continued,however,and he did notreceive aresponse to hisInformalComplaint. On February Ferebee v. Gibson et al Doc. 8 19,2019,FerebeefiledasecondInformalComplaintfonn aboutthewaterissuesin hiscell,ROSP19-+ 17-00365. On February 25,2019,OfficerD.Gibson and the prison'splumber,D.Stallard,cnm eto Ferebee's celldoorto discuss his Infonnal Complaints. They asked Ferebee if he wanted to Dockets.Justia.com withdraw them ,butFerebee refused to do so. Gibson allegedly told Ferebee Cthe'llregretthat.'' (ld.at9.(Theofficerslef4withoutreturningFerebee'sInformalComplaintFol'mstohim. Thenextday,Ferebee'slnform alCom plaintswerereturnedtohim throughtheinstitutional mail.Heallegesthaton eachoftheformshisCSSIGNATUM HAS BEEN FORJURED (sicq''to makeitappearthathehadwithdrawn theInform alComplaint,astheoffk ershad urged him to do. (Id.at8,9.) Ferebeefiledan InformalComplaintabouttheofficers'alterationofhispriorforms. In response,he wastold thatduring an investigation ofthem atter,Stallard and Gibson both said Ferebeehadltwillfully''signedthefol' m stoindicatethathewaswithdrawingthem. (Id.at11.) Ferebee explainsthatwhen an inmatewithdrawsan Inform alComplaint,any later-fled form on thesnmeissuewillberejectedasrepetitive.W ithoutaprocessedInformalComplaint,theinmate cnnnot properly fle a Regular Grievance, the next required step in the prison's grievance procedures. Inhisj1983 complaint,Ferebeeassertsthatthedefendants'actionsdeprivedhim ofhis rightsto GEFREE EXERCISE THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCEIS)and DUE PROCESS BY EQUAL PROTECTION OF FEDEM L AND STATE CM ATED LIBERTY INTEREST.''(J.4s at18.) FerebeecontendsthatGibson and Stallardfalsifedhissignaturetoshow hiswithdrawal of the two Inform al Com plaint Forms as partof their conspiracy to retaliate against him for complaining aboutthewaterproblem sand to preventhim from fling a lawsuiton thatissue. See 42 U.S.C.j1997e(a)(CENo action shallbebroughtwith respectto prison conditionsunder g42 U.S.C.j1983jbyaprisonerconfinedin anyjail,prison,orothercorrectionalfacilityuntilsuch administrativeremediesasareavailableareexhausted.''). Finally,Ferebeecomplainsthatthe defendantsviolated statelaws,nam ely,an anti-retaliation provision and otherrequirem entsofthe prison's grievance procedures. As relief,he seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and com pensatory and punitive dnm ages. Thecourtm ay sum marily dismissacaseCtbroughtwithrespectto prison conditions...by aprisonercov nedinanyjail,prison,orothercorrectionalfacilityifthecourtissatisfiedthatthe action isfrivolous,m alicious,failsto state aclaim upon which reliefcan begranted.'' 42 U .S.C. j 1997e(c)(1).A itivolous''claim isonethatttlacksanarguablebasiseitherin 1aw orinfact.'' Neitzkev.W illinms,490U.S.319,325,327(1989)(intepretingttfrivolous''in formerversionof 28 U.S.C.j 1915(d)). Section 1983pennitsan aggrieved party to file a civilaction againsta person foractionstaken tmdercolorofstate1aw thatviolated hisconstitutionalrights. Cooperv. Sheehan,735F.3d153,158(4thCir.2013). Ferebee has no Ctconstitm ionalentitlem entto and/ordue process interestin accessing a grievanceprocedure constitm ionalrightto participate in aprison grievance procedtlre.'' Booker v.S.C.Dep'tofCorr.,855 F.3d 533,542 (4th Cir.2017),cert.denied,138 S.Ct.755 (2018). Thus,hisj1983claim thatthedefendants'actionspreventedhim from filingfurthergrievances and appealsconcerningthewaterissuesin hiscellmustbe summ arily dismissed. Ferebee has a FirstAm çndm entrightto be free frbm retaliation,however,for fling the InformalComplaintsasan exerciseofhisrighttopetition forredress. Id.ttRetaliation,though it isnotexpressly referredtointheConstitution,isnonetlïelessactionablegunderj 19831because retaliatory actions m ay tend to chillindividuals'exercise of constitutionalrights.'' Am .Civil LibertiesUnionv.W icomicoCty.,999 F.2d780,785(4th Cir.1993).Ontheotherhmld,lmust treataninmate'sclaim ofretaliationbyprison officialsEswithskepticism ,''becauseprisonofficials' actions are often taken in directresponse to a prisoner's conduct. Cochran v.M orris,73 F.3d 1310,1317(4thCir.1996).&&gT)ostateacolorableretaliationclaim tmderSection 1983,aplaintiff mustallegethat(1)heengagedinprotectedFirstAmendmentactivity,(2)thedefendanttooksome actionthatadverselyaffectedhisFirstAmendmentrights,mld(3)therewasacausalrelationship between hisprotected activity and the defendant'sconducta''M artin v.Duffv,858F.3d 239,249 (4thCir.2017),cert.denied,138S.Ct.738,(2018). Ferebee'sallegationssatisfy only thefirstand third factorsin thisstandard. Asstated,he wasexercisinghisconstitutionallyprotectedrighttopetitionwhen hefledllisInformalComplaint aboutthewaterproblems,in satisfaction ofthefirstfactor.Hehasalsoalleged thatthedefendants ) falsified withdrawalofthatform because itcomplained aboutwaterproblems,in satisfaction of the third factor. Ferebee's retaliation claim fails,however,because he cannot show that this sequence ofeventshad a sufficiently adverse effecton hisability to exercise aFirstAm endm ent right. &Tor pup oses of a FirstAmendment retaliation claim tmder Section 1983,a plaintiff suffersadverse action ifthe defendant'sallegedlyretaliatory conductwould likely deteraperson ofordinazy fsrmness from the exercise ofFirstAmendm entrights.'' 1d. lwillassume thatthe defendants'alleged forgeriesprevented Ferebee from filing additionalInfonnalComplaints or RegularGrievancesaboutthewaterproblem s.Becausehehasnoconstitutionalrighttoparticipate in a prison grievance procedtlre,see Booker,supra,llis alleged preclusion from filing f'uttzre grievance forms or appeals was nota depdvation ofconstitutionalproportions. M oreover,the tmavailability ofthe prison's grievance procedureson the water issue did notpreclude Ferebee from exercisingllisrighttopetition orhisrightto accessthecourts,becauseheretained the ability tofileafederallawsuitonthematter.SeeRossv.Blake,136S.Ct.1850,1859(2016)(finding thatinm ate who fails to exhaustadm izlistrative rem ediesbefore filing federalcivilaction m ay 4 escapedismissalunder42U.S.C.j 1997e(a)ifheprovesthatthoseremedieswerenotavailable tohim). Forthestated reasons,lconcludethatFerebee'sallegationsdonotstatean actionable j1983retaliationclaim. Consequently,Ferebee'sallegationsalsofailtosupportaj 1983 conspiracy claim. Such a claim requiresshowing thatpurported conspiratorsagreed to take som e action thatviolated the plaintiff'sconstitutionalrights. Hinklev.City ofClarksburg,81F.3d416,421(4th Cir.1996). Here,forthereasonsIhavealready described,the defendants'actionsdid notdepriveFerebeeof anyconstitutionallyprotectedright,sothey cannotnotsupportaj1983conspiracyclaim. In addition, Ferebee's contentions do not state any claim that he was denied equal protection.Forsuch aclaim ,aninmate''m ustfirstdemonstratethathehasbeen treateddifferently 9om otherswith whom heissimilarly simated and thatthetmequaltreatmentwastheresultof intentionalorpurposef'uldiscrimination.'' Veneyv.W vche,293F.3d 726,730 (4th Cir.2002) (internalquotationmarksandcitationomitted).Ferebeehasmadenosuch showing. The defendants' alleged forgery of Ferebee's nam e m ay have violated som e prison regulation ornlle. Violationsofstateprocedtlralregulations,however,do notpresentany claim actionableunderj 1983.Ricciov.Ctv.ofFairfax,907F.2d 1459,1469(4thCir.1990)((:Ifstate 1aw grantsmoreprocedlzralrightsthantheConstitutionwouldotherwiserequire,astategofficial'sq failureto abideby thatlaw isnotafederaldueprocessissue.''). Forthereasonsstated,IwillsummarilydismissFerebee'sj 1983claimswithoutprejudice, pursuantto28U.S.C.j1915A(b)91),forfailuretostateaclaim.Assuch,ptlrsumltto28U.S.C. j1367(c),Ideclinetoexercisesupplementaljurisdictionoveranyrelatedstate1aw claimsarldwill dismissthem withoutprejudice. An appropriate orderwillissuethisday. Dismissalwithout prejudiceleavesFerebeefreetorefilehisclaimsinanew andseparatecivilactionifhecancorrect the defcienciesdescribed in thism emorandum opinion. The clerk willsend a copy ofthism em orandum opinion and the accompanying orderto theplaintiff. Exlxlum tlusG+hdayoflmw,2019. P . '* N : SEN OR UN ITED STATES D ISTRICT JU D GE
]]>
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.
