Edwards v. Kiser et al, No. 7:2019cv00382 - Document 5 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 6/21/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERKS OFFICQ U.S.DSST.COUR' AT ROANOG ,VA FILED IN TH E UN ITED STA TES DIST RICT CO U R T FO R TH E W ESTERN DISTW CT O F V IR G INIA R O A NO K E D IW SIO N JUN 21 2219 . M IC H A EL DE IG ICK EDW A R DS, JULIAA .DUD BK .bfDpu-'rYc jc y RK CA SE NO .7:19CV 00382 Plaintiff, V. M EM O R AN D U M O PINIO N W ARDEN J.KISER,c K , By: H on.Glen E.Conrad Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge D efendants. Plaintiff M ichaelDerrick Edwards,a Virginia inmate proceeding pro K ,has sled this civilrightsaction,pursuantto 42 U.S.C.j 1983,alleging thathe wasdeprived ofdueprocess protections related to prison disciplinary proceedings. Afterreview ofEdwards'submissions, thecourtconcludesthathiscomplaintmustbe summ arily dismissed. Edwardsisconfined atRed Onion StatePrison (ûGRed Onion''),aprison facilityoperated by VirginiaDepartmentofCoaections(1:VDOC'').Heallegesthefollowingsequenceofevents insupportofhisj 1983claims.On Febrtlary 1,2019,acorrectionalofficerservedEdwardswith a Disciplinary Offense Report(GçDOR''),written by defendant Edgar. The DOR charged Edwards with the offense of covering lzis celldoor window on January 30,2019. Edwards refused to sign the DOR,butthe serving ofscerallegedly failed to certify this factaccording to VDOC policy. Atthe disciplinary hearing on February 13,2019,Edwards noticed that som eone had Edwards v. Kiser et al Doc. 5 Sûforged''his copy ofthe DOR,ttto m ake it as'if itwas served''January 31,2019,instead of February 1,2019. Compl.3,ECF N o. Som eone had also Itforged the serving officer's signam re m aking itlook as if he certified the refusalto sign,''and forged the date on the penalty offerform,in violation ofVDOC policy.ld. Dockets.Justia.com Thehearing officerfound Edwards guilty ofthe offense,based on the reporting offcer's identification of Edwards as the inm ate who had covered his window. Edwards claim s this evidence wasinsuftk ientto supporthis conviction ofthe offense,because EdgarûGwas neverat EEdwards'ldoorpickinguptrays''anddidnotcallOftkerShirkGtforassistancetelling(Edwards) to lmcoverhiswindow .''Id. Edwards sues Red Ozlion W arden Kiser,UnitM anger L.Collins,J.G.Layall,Edgar, Heming Offcer M ullins, and the VDOC regional adm inistrator for the westem region. H e contendsthatthese defendantsviolated hisdueprocessrightstmdertheFourteenth Amendm ent. The courtmay summ arily dism issacase GGbroughtwith respecttoprison conditions...by aprisonerconfinedinanyjail,prison,orothercorrectionalfacilityifthecourtissatisfiedthatthe actiop isfrivolous,malicious,(or)failsto statea claim upon which reliefcan be granted.'' 42 U.S.C.j 1997e(c)(1). Section 1983 permitsan aggrieved party to filea civilaction againsta person foractionstaken undercolorofstate1aw thatviolated hisconstitutionalrights. Cooperv. Sheehan,735F.3d 153,158(4th Cir.2013). GiIA)plaintiffmustplead thateach Government-oftkialdefendant,through theofEcial's own individualactions,has violated the Constitution.'' Ashcroftv.Iqbal,556 U.S.662,676 (2009. ).Supervisoryoftkialsmaynotbeheldautomaticallyliablefortheunconstimtionalconduct oftheirsubordinates.Id.Edwardsfailsto describeany action whatsoeverthatdefendantsKiser, Collins,Layall, and the regional adm inistrator took in violation of his constitutional rights. A ccordingly,his claim sagainstthese defendants m ustbe sllm m arily dism issed. Prisoners retain rights under the Due Process Clause,but because prison disciplinary proceedingsarenotpartofacriminalprosecution,thefullan'ay ofrightsdue adefendantin such 2 Prisoners retain rights under the Due Process Clause,but because prison disciplinary proceedingsarenotpartofacrim inalprosecution,thefullarray ofrightsdue adefendantin such proceedingsdoesnotapply.W olffv.M cDolmell,418U.S.539,556(1974)(citingMorrisseyv. Brew e'r, 408U.S.471,488(1972)).Inprisondisciplinaryproceedingswhereaninmatefacesthe possible loss of a constitm ionally protected interest, he is entitled to limited due process protections. Theseinclude:(1)advancewritten noticeofthe chargesagainsthim;(2)awritten statementofthe evidence relied on and the reasons fortaking any disciplinary action;(3)a hearing where he isafforded the rightto callwitnesses and presentevidence when doing so is notinconsistentwith institutionalsafety and correctionalçoncerns;(4)the opporttmity to have non-attorney representation when the inmate is illiterate or the disciplinary heming involves complex issues;and (5)a neutraldecision-maker. Id.at564-71. Substantive due processis satissed ifthe disciplinary hearing decision was based upon Gdsom e evidence.'' Superintendent M ass.Corr.Inst.v.Hill,472U.S.445,455(1985). EdwardsallegesthatdefendantEdgarGifalsely''charged him with an offense forcovedng his celldoorwindow,apparently because another,urmamed officerwas more directly involved in the incident. Absentsom e evidence or claim thata challenged disciplinary conviction w as improperly obtained,aninmate'sassertionsthattheinitialchargewasfalsecnnnotstateaj 1983 dueprocessclaim. Richardson v.Ray,492 F.App'x 395,396 (4th Cir.2012). Edwardsdoes not state facts showing thatEdgarlacked suftk ientknowledge aboutEdwards'misconductto w rite the D O R. M oreover,ifEdw ards w anted to hearthe accotm ts of other oflicers present,he could have requested witness statem ents from them . W olff did notrecognize a constitutional due process requizem ent for prison ox cials to support a disciplinary charge w ith eyew itness testimony abouttheinm ate'schargedm isconduct. 3 Edwards also complainsthatdefendantM ullins,asheming offcer,did nothave enough evidence to 5nd Edw ardsguilty. The courtcnnnotagree. The reporting oftk er'sidentification ofEdwaids asthe inmate who covered his window on January 30,2019,constitutes Gtsome evideùce''to supporta finding thatEdwardscom mittedtheoffense.Hill,472 U .S.at455. The rem ainder of Edwards' complaints about the disciplinary proceedings concem alleged violations ofVDOC procedures. He doesnotallegethatoflicials failed to providellim with notice of the charge wellin advance ofthe disciplinary hearing,where he could present evidence in his defense. He doesnotcomplain ofany otherW olffprotectionsnotprovided to him . Even assllming thatsomeone changed dateson forms or certified hisrefusalto sign them afterthe fact,these procedtlresare partoftheVDOC regulatory schem e. Violations ofVDOC regulations alone do not state any constitutional violation and thus,are not actionable tm der j1983. W ellerv.Dep'tofSocialServices,901 F.2d 387,392 (4th Cir.1990)(ç$(I)tiswell settledthatviolationsofstate1aw cnnnotprovidethebasisforadueprocessc1aim.''). Forthestatedreasons,thecourtissatisfied thatEdwards'j1983complaintfailsto state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted. Therefore,on thatgrotmd,the courtw ills'Jmm mily dismissthisaction withoutprejudice,ptlrsuantto j1915A(b)(1). Dismissalwithoutprejudice leaves Edwards free to retile his claim in a new and separate lawsuit if he can correct the descienciesdescribed in thisOpinion. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this m em orandum opinion and accom panying orderto plaintiff. h l# dayofJune EN TER : T is t' , 2019. SeniorUrlited StatesDistrictJudge 4
]]>
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.
