Williams v. Parks et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 12/1/14. (Order to follow).(gwalk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
Chauncey A. Williams,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
V.
James E. Parks, et aL,
Defendants.
l:14cv683(TSE/IDD)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Chauncey A. Williams, a Virginia inmate proceeding gro se, has filed a civil rights
action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants have violated his right to be free of
endangerment and have shown deliberate indifferenceto his serious medical needs. Plaintiff has
applied to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. After reviewing plaintiff's amended
complaint, the claims against the defendants must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(l) for failure tostate a claim.' Also pending before the Court isplaintiffs "Motion
for Addendum," which will be denied, without prejudice to plaintiffs ability to bring his
allegations in a separate lawsuit.
Section 1915A provides:
(a) Screening.—^The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any
event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which
a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal.—On review, the court shall identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief
I. Background
On May 29,2014, plaintiff, an inmate at Sussex II State Prison ("Sussex") filed a
complaint alleging that the defendants violated his right to be free from endangerment by
returning him to Housing Unit 4-C, where he previously had been attacked. Sw Compl. 4. He
stated that "miscreant activity" occurred on four more occasions after being returned to Housing
Unit 4-C. Ml Plaintiff attached several exhibits to his original complaint, which consisted of
various administrative grievances submitted to prison officials. See id Ex. None of these
exhibits, however, related to the alleged attack.
id (consisting of grievances surrounding
health and sanitary complaints, lack of toilet paper, and lack of access to the law library). By
Order dated August 19,2014, the Court directed plaintiff to particularize and amend his
complaint,to allege specific facts stating a claim against the defendants.
On September 18,2014, Plaintiff submitted his amended complaint. Dkt. 9. In it, he
makes several new allegations against the defendants, including that the defendants were
engaged in "gerrymandering within classification, to preventplaintiff/litigant's security level to
prevent, or protect plaintiff/litigant, from imminent harm, or risk to future danger." Am. Compl.
2. He also alleges that defendants failed to investigate "a plethora of inconsistencies in
management practices at SussexII, including Due Process and Offender services[, including] (A)
Request for indigent services...; (B) Reasonable Safety; (C) Deliberate IndiflFerence/Medical
Needs." Id 4. Plaintiff also adds three new defendants to his complaint, alleging that these
defendants showed "willful blindness" to the conditions of his confinement, his institutional
classification level, and his medical needs. S^ id 9-10. Because plaintiff has not alleged any
additional specific facts supporting his original claim of endangerment, and has attempted to add
several other unrelated claims to his lawsuit, his complaint must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(l) for failure to state a claim.
II. Standard of Review
In reviewing a complaint pursuant to § 1915A, a court must dismiss a prisoner complaint
that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(l). Whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted is
determined by "the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)."
Sumner v. Tucker. 9 F. Supp. 2d 641,642 (E.D. Va. 1998). To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, and
thus state a claim under § 1915A(b)(l), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. lobal. 556
U.S. 662,678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv. 550 U.S. 544,570 (2007)). "A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal. 556
U.S. at 663. However, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to meet this standard, id at 678, and a plaintiffs
"[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level
"
Twomblv. 550 U.S. at 55. Moreover, a court "is not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation." Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 678.
III. Analysis
A.
Endaneerment
Plaintiff's original complaint alleged that defendants were violating his right to be free of
endangerment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. To statea claim under § 1983 for
endangerment properly, a plaintiffmustshow: (1) that he suffered "serious or significant
physical or emotional injury" as a result ofthe defendants' actions, De'Lonta v. Aneelone. 330
F.3d 630,634 (4th Cir. 2003); and (2) that prison officials acted with a "sufficiently culpable
state of mind," Farmer v. Brennan. 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). To possess a "sufficiently
culpable state of mind," prison officials must act with "deliberate indifference" to an inmate's
health or safety. ^
id at 834. A prison official shows deliberate indifference if he "knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Id at 837.
In its August 19,2014 Order, the Court allowed plaintiff an opportunity to particularize
and amend his complaint to allege facts showing how the defendants actually harmed him, or, in
the alternative, why they should be liable as supervisors. In his amended complaint, plaintiff
alleges that, on several occasions, he informed defendant Parks, supervisor of Offender
Management Services, of "gerrymandering within [his classification level]," and informed Parks
of the risk ofharm resuhing from his current classification. See Am. Compl. 2. He then states
that Parks' response was "inadequate, amounting to, a level of deliberate indifference." Id
Plaintiff fails to state specifically how Parks' response constituted deliberate indifference.
Plaintiff has also referenced several administrative grievance fonns, but has not attached them to
his complaint. Similarly, plaintiff alleges that he was stabbed due to "laxity resulting from the
inaction of [defendants Vargo and Jordan], [in] not reporting, or even documenting [prior fights
in Housing Unit 4-C]." Id 3.
Although plaintiff does not attach any grievances to support his allegations, and does not
describe what specifically happened during any attack mentioned in his complaint, he does
reference exhibits attached to an earlier case before the Court, 1:13cv823 (TSE/IDD), in which
plaintiff made similar allegations of deliberate indifference based on his improper classification
level and one or more attacks by other inmates in 2013. Sm Compl,, l:13cv823, at Handwritten
pp. 5,15. The Court takes judicial notice of this prior record, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 201. Judicial notice is particularly applicable in this case, as the record of prior
litigation is closely related to the matter currently under consideration. See Lolavar v. De
Santibanes. 430 F.3d 221, 224 n.2 (4th Cir. 2005). In his previous lawsuit, he stated that one of
the attacks occurred on June 15,2013, three days after he requested to speak to the Mental
Health Department about the behavior of his cell-mate, and that staffs failure to respond to his
request constituted deliberate indifference.
Compl., I:13cv823 (TSE/IDD), at Handwritten
p. 6; Ex. E.
However, plaintiffs previous exhibits fail to state a claim for endangerment. Plaintiffs
own exhibit shows that, on June 12,2013, plaintiff submitted a request to have a "face-to-face
meeting" with his social worker, "to help Offender Williams co-existance [sic] at [Sussex II]."
Id. Ex. E. He stated that he was making his request for a second time. His social worker
respondedon June 18,2013, stating, "1 only received one request but my apologiesfor not
getting to you sooner. There are a couple names ahead of yours. Hope our session helped
yesterday." Id Thus, it appears that plaintiffmet with his social worker, defendant Jordan, on
June 17,2013, two days after he was allegedly attacked by another inmate. Plaintiffdoes not
state what injuries he suffered as a result ofthe attack. Plaintiffs own evidence shows that his
social workerresponded to his requests in a timely manner and met with him at least once after
the attack.^ Defendant Jordan's actions show that she did not show deliberate indifference to
^ In hisearlier complaint, plaintiffalso made reference to being attacked on March 12,2013,
and May 30,2013. See Compl., 1:13cv823 (TSE/IDD), at Handwritten p. 15. Plaintiff does not
provide any additional information about these attacks, such as when they occurred, who was
involved, and if he mformed staffabout them. He hasthus not provided enough information by
which the Court could find that the defendants violated his right to be free of endangerment.
5
plaintiff. Plaintiffs claim of endangerment must be dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(l).
Plaintiff has also failed to show that defendants Parks and Vargo can be liable as
supervisors. He states that Parks "has allowed supervisors of the Offender Management Service
and Classification Board to be aware of 'de facto' gerrymandering with classification
"
Amend. Compl. 2. He states that Parks' response to this knowledge was "inadequate amounting
to, [sic] a level of deliberate indifference, the affirmative causal link, between Mr. Parks,
inaction, and the particular Constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff/litigant." Id Plaintiff
makes similar allegations against defendant Vargo. Plaintiff has not supported these conclusory
statements by any factual allegations or additional information. Thus, plaintiffs statements fail
to provide enough information to hold defendants Parks and Vargo liable as supervisors. His
claims against them must be dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § I915A(b)(l).
B.
Additional Allegations
Plaintiff devotes much of his amended complaint to other alleged Eighth Amendment
violations, such as the failure on the part of the defendants to provide medical treatment, soap,
toothpaste, and legal materials. See, e.g.. Am. Compl. 4. Plaintiffappears to allege that the
conditions of his confinement violate the Eighth Amendment, and that the defendants have
known about these conditions since at least March 2013. Id 4-5. These allegations appear to
relate to the exhibits attached to plaintiff's original complaint, and also to exhibits filed in
plaintiff's previouslawsuit, l:13cv823 (TSE/IDD). However, plaintiffalso names new
defendants, including the Warden of Nottoway Correctional Center, not namedin his original
complaint, sw id 9-10,^ and alleges that medical staffshowed deliberate indifference to his
^ Plaintiff's earlier lawsuit, 1:13cv823 (TSE/IDD), involvedNottoway Correctional Center.
6
medical needs, see id 11. Plaintiffs "Motion for Addendum" also makes arguments of Eighth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment violations. See Mot. for Addendum, at 1, Ex. 2,10-14.
Plaintij^s allegations are unrelated to plaintiffs original claim in this lawsuit, and thus
must be dismissed for misjoinder, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 18(a) provides that "[a] party asserting a claim... may join, as independent
or alternative claims, as many claims at it has against an opposing party." When joining multiple
claims against multiple defendants, however, plaintiff must also satisfy Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 20, which states:
(2) Defendants. Persons... may be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally,
or in the alternative vnth respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occiurences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise
in the action.
"Rule 20 does not authorize a plaintiff to add claims 'against different parties [that] present []
entirely different factual and legal issues." Svkes v. Baver Pharmaceutical Corp.. 548 F. Supp.
2d 208,218 (E.D. Va. 2008) (alterations in original) (quoting Lovelace v. Lee. 2007 WL
3069660, at *1 (W.D. Va. Oct. 21,2007)). Thus, plaintiff is not permitted to bring claims
against the defendants that are completely unrelated to the claims raised in his original
complaint.
As the allegations in plaintiffs amended complaint and Motion for Addendum arise out
of a different transaction or occurrence than the allegation in his original complaint, and as the
allegations raise completely unrelated legaland factual issues, plaintiff's new claims must be
dismissed, as misjoined under Rule 20. This dismissal is without prejudiceto plaintiffs ability
to bring these claims in a separate lawsuit.
Therefore, this complaint will be dismissed, pursuant to §191SA(b)(l), for failure to state
aclaim, and plaintiffs Motion for an Addendum will be denied. An appropriate Order and
Judgment will issue.
SksmLn 2014.
Alexandria, Virginia
T.S. Ellis, m
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?