Crumpton v. Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections et al, No. 7:2019cv00392 - Document 7 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 7/9/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cLen/: OFFI C: u.e.n*#.eouRr . ATX VILLE,V6 FILED JUL 22 2212 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH E W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOK E DIVISION W ILLIAM CRUM PTON z. 2Uuge Ll A G.bo. UDLEXCkRK DEPUW CLE CivilA ction N o.7:19-cv-00392 Plaintiff, V. M EM OR ANDUM OPINION DIRECTOR OF THE W RG INIA DEPARTM ENT OF CORRECTIONS, By: et al., H on.Jackson L.K iser Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge D efendants. W illinm Crumpton,aVirginia inm ateproceeding pro K ,filed thij action pursuantto 42 U.S.C.j 1983,allegingthatprison officialsdeprivedhim ofshowershoesand violatedllisdue processrightsrelated to a disciplinary proceeding. Afterreview ofhissubmissions,Iconclude thattheaction m ustbe summ mily dism issed. CrumptoniscurrentlyconfinedatKeenM ountainCorrectionalCenter(GçKM CC''),aprison facility operated by the Virginia Depm mentofCorrections(ççVDOC''). On M arch 13,2019, Institutional Investigator M itchell moved Cnzmpton to a special housing unit, pending an investigation. W hen officersbroughtCrumpton'spersonalproperty to hisnew cell,hisReebok showershoesweremissing.Herefusedto sign aproperty inventorysheet,becausehedid nothave hisshoes,whiçh wereneverrettumed tohim .Fortwo months,untilhecould ptlrchase anew pair, Crumpton tthad to showerin tm sanitary conditions''with no showershoes.Compl.5,ECF No.1. On April1,2019,Crumpton wasselwed with a Disciplinary Offense ReportGtforOffense Crumpton v. Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections et al Doc. 7 Code:122E/198A.''Ld.aAtfirst,hisdisciplino heazingwasscheduleéforApril8,2019.Onthat date,how ever,a oftk er served him w ith a N otice of Authorized Continuance,rescheduling the Dockets.Justia.com hearingforApril11,2019. Accordingto thenotice,thecontinuancewasççdueto Staff/W itnesses are offduty/Away on dateofHearing.'' Id. Crum pton contendsthatthisnotice was($a complete false.'' Id. M itchell,asthe reporting officer,wasallegedly the only staffm emberexpected at Cnmp ton's disciplinary hearing. According to Cnzmpton,M itchellwas on duty atKM CC on April11,2019. In his j 1983 complaint,Crumpton sues the VDOC director,the KM CC warden,the hearing officer,and M itchell. He contendsthatdeprivation ofhis shower shoeswas crtzeland tmusualplnishm ent,in violation ofthe Eighth Am endment,and thatfalsifying the continuance notice deprived him of a liberty interest without due process. As relief, Crumpton seeks declaratory and injunctiverelief,directingKM CC officialsto stop violatingVDOC disciplinary procedm es,andcom pensatory and punitive damages. The courtmust <idis'miss any action brought with respect to pdson conditions under gj 1983)by a pdsonerconfined in anyjail,prison,orothercorrectionalfacility ifthe courtis satisfiedthattheactionisfrivolous,malicious,(or)failstostateaclaim upon whichreliefcanbe granted.'' 42 U.S.C.j1997e(c)(1). To state acauseofaction underj 1983,aplaintiffmust establish thathehasbeen deprived ofrightsguaranteed by theConstitution orlawsoftheUnited Statesandthattllisdeprivationresultedfrom conductcomm itted by aperson actingtmdercolorof statelaw.W estv.Atkins,487U.S.42 (1988).1 1Crumptonalsofailstostateanyactionabledueprocessclaim regardingthelossofhisshowershoes.d$(Aqn unauthorized intentionaldeprivationofpropertyby astateemployeedoesnotconstituteaviolation oftheprocedural requirem entsoftheD ueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAm endm entifam eaningfulpostdeprivationrem edyforthe lossisavailable.''Hudsonv.Palmer,468U.S.517,533, (1984).BecauseCnlmptonpossessedtortremediesunder Virginiastatelaw toseekreimbursementforthelossofhisshowershoes,seeVirginiaCodeAnn.j8.01-195.3,he carm otprevailin aconstitutionalclaim forthatloss. - 2- The Eighth Am endm ent protects prisoners from cruel and unusual living conditions. Rhodesv.Chapman,452U.S.337,347(1981).2 $GInordertoestablishtheimpositionofcrueland tmusualptmishm ent,aprisonerm ustprovetwo elements- thatthe deprivation ofabasichllm an need was obiectively suftk iently serious, and that subiectively the officials acted with a suffkientlyculpablestateofmind.''Shnkkav.Smith,71F.3d162,166(4th Cir.1995)(emphasis added). E' Tlo demonstrate thata deprivation is extreme enough to satisfy the objective componentofan Eighth Am endmentclaim ,aprisonermustttproduceevidence of aseriousorsignificantphysicaloremotionalinjuryresultingfrom thechallenged conditionsy''...ordemonstrate a substantialrisk ofsuch serious harm resulting from theprisoner'stmwilling exposureto thechallenged conditions. Id.Cnzmptonfailstoshow thathesufferedanyseriousorsignificantphysicaloremotionalinjury from being withoutshowershoes fortwo m onths. Accordingly,hisEighth Am endm ent claim fails,and 1willsllmm arily dismissit. Prisoners retain rights lmder the Due Process Clause,but because prison disciplinary proceedingsarenotpartofa criminalprosecution,thef'ullarray ofrightsdueadefendantin such proceedingsdoesnotapply.W olffv.M cDonnell,418U.S.539,556 (1974)(citingM orrissevv. Brewer,408 U.S.471,488 (1972)). Federaldue processprotections in plison disciplinary proceedingsarelimitedto:(1)advancewrittennoticeofthecharges;(2)awritten statementofthe evidenceandreasonssupportingthedisciplinaryaction;(3)ahearingwithrightstocallwitnesses and presentevidence w hen doing so is notinconsistentw ith institutionalsafety and correctional concerns;(4)theoppoitunityforastaffadvisor;and(5)aneutraldecision-maker.Id.at564-71. 2 Ihaveom itted internalquotationm arks,alterations,and citationshere andthroughoutthisopinion,unless otherwisenoted. . Substantive due process is satisfed ifthe disciplinazy heming decision w as based upon Gtsom e evidence.''SuperintendentM ass.Con'.Inst.v.Hill,472U.S.445,455(1985). Crum pton'sdueprocessclaim doesnotallegedenialofany rightrecognized underW olff. Rather,he attemptsto equate stateprison disciplinmy procedureswith federaldueprocess. No such correlatioh exists. Oftk ials'alleged violations of VDOC disciplinary procedtlres do not implicateany constimtionally protectedrightand so arenotactionableunderj 1983. W ellerv. Dep'tofSocialServices,901F.2d387,392(4thCir.1990). Forthe stated reasons,Cnlm pton'sallegations do notprovide the facttzalorlegalbasisfor any constitutionalclaim actionable tmderj 1983. Accordingly,Iwillsummarily dismiss the complaintwithoutprejudice,pursuantto j 1997e(c)(1),asfrivolous.An appropriateOrderwill enterthisday.DismissalwithoutprejudiceleavesCnzmpton freetorefilehisclaimsin new and separatecivilactionsifhecan correctthenoted deficiencies,subjecttotheapplicablestattzteof limitations.3 The clerk willsend a copy ofthism emorandum opinion and the accom panying orderto the plaintiff. ENTERED this 9:% - dayofJuly,2019. ' T' y A E IOR U N ITE TA ES D ISTRICT JU DG E 3IherebyadviseCrumptonthathiscomplaintinthiscasejoinedunrelatedclaimsinonelawsuitinamanner thatisinconsistentwith theFederalRulesofCivilProcedm' e.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.18,20.Ifhedecidestorefileeither ofhisclaims,theymustbeproperly presented in two separatecomplaints. - 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.
